[Met_help] [rt.rap.ucar.edu #84134] History for verifying ozone
John Halley Gotway via RT
met_help at ucar.edu
Tue Jul 9 12:03:49 MDT 2019
----------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Request
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hi, everyone,
I am helping the AQM group verify ozone and I need some assistance in using
PB2NC (and then later point_stat, but let's start with PB2NC). I need to
be able to read in two quantities from the prepbufr file and then combine
that to be able to compare to the two model items.
In the bufr file, the variables at hand are COPO (the ozone concentration),
and also TPHR. TPHR is either -1 or -8 depending on whether the observed
ozone is a 1-hr or 8-hr average.
In essence, we have two entities here depending on the value of TPHR: the
1-hr average ozone and the 8-hr average ozone. But they have the same
value.
In the model we also have two variables. Both are called OZCON, but the
first one in the file is a 1-hr average and the second one is the 8-hr
average.
The trick here is verifying 1-hr average with 1-hr average, and 8-hr
average with 8-hr average. I think there is a multiplication factor in
there somewhere, as the obs are in units of mole/mole, while the model is
in parts per billion (ppb).
I don't know if you've spoken with the AQM team on how exactly to do this,
but I was hoping to help them with this. If you can advise on how to do
this, that would be great!
Thanks!
Perry
----------------------------------------------------------------
Complete Ticket History
----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: verifying ozone
From: John Halley Gotway
Time: Tue Feb 20 16:55:16 2018
Hi Perry,
Can you please point me to a model output file containing the OZCON
fields? Presumably, these are in GRIB1 or 2 format, and hopefully,
there's
some flag in the header that will enable us to distinguish between the
GRIB
records containing 1 and 8 hour averages.
As for the point observations, I suspect that we'll need to add logic
to
PB2NC to distinguish between the 1 and 8 hour COPO concentrations.
Perhaps
we could update PB2NC to use the TPHR values to renamed COPO to COPO_1
and
COPO_8?
Are these COPO point observations present in NDAS or GDAS PrepBUFR
files?
Thanks,
John
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:40 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> Tue Feb 20 13:40:01 2018: Request 84134 was acted upon.
> Transaction: Ticket created by perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> Queue: met_help
> Subject: verifying ozone
> Owner: Nobody
> Requestors: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> Status: new
> Ticket <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
>
>
> Hi, everyone,
>
> I am helping the AQM group verify ozone and I need some assistance
in using
> PB2NC (and then later point_stat, but let's start with PB2NC). I
need to
> be able to read in two quantities from the prepbufr file and then
combine
> that to be able to compare to the two model items.
>
> In the bufr file, the variables at hand are COPO (the ozone
concentration),
> and also TPHR. TPHR is either -1 or -8 depending on whether the
observed
> ozone is a 1-hr or 8-hr average.
>
> In essence, we have two entities here depending on the value of
TPHR: the
> 1-hr average ozone and the 8-hr average ozone. But they have the
same
> value.
>
> In the model we also have two variables. Both are called OZCON, but
the
> first one in the file is a 1-hr average and the second one is the 8-
hr
> average.
>
> The trick here is verifying 1-hr average with 1-hr average, and 8-hr
> average with 8-hr average. I think there is a multiplication factor
in
> there somewhere, as the obs are in units of mole/mole, while the
model is
> in parts per billion (ppb).
>
> I don't know if you've spoken with the AQM team on how exactly to do
this,
> but I was hoping to help them with this. If you can advise on how
to do
> this, that would be great!
>
> Thanks!
>
> Perry
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: verifying ozone
From: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
Time: Wed Feb 21 06:39:27 2018
Hi, John,
If I recall you have no WCOSS access so I will place both a model and
an
observed file on Theia. I need to log onto Theia anyway so I don't
lose my
access.
COPO point observations are in neither an NDAS or GDAS prepbufr file.
They
are in their own prepbufr files, created from AIRNOW observations in
bufr
(non-prepbufr).
We might need to work with the AQ team to let us know if there is also
a
conversion factor that needs to be considered as well, as I'm not
entirely
sure of that. But I could also comb our gridtobs codes to check that
myself too.
Just wondering - hasn't anyone from the AQ team or myself sent you
copies
of the observed and model files before? I thought that we had.
Perry
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 6:55 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> Hi Perry,
>
> Can you please point me to a model output file containing the OZCON
> fields? Presumably, these are in GRIB1 or 2 format, and hopefully,
there's
> some flag in the header that will enable us to distinguish between
the GRIB
> records containing 1 and 8 hour averages.
>
> As for the point observations, I suspect that we'll need to add
logic to
> PB2NC to distinguish between the 1 and 8 hour COPO concentrations.
Perhaps
> we could update PB2NC to use the TPHR values to renamed COPO to
COPO_1 and
> COPO_8?
>
> Are these COPO point observations present in NDAS or GDAS PrepBUFR
files?
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:40 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > Tue Feb 20 13:40:01 2018: Request 84134 was acted upon.
> > Transaction: Ticket created by perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > Queue: met_help
> > Subject: verifying ozone
> > Owner: Nobody
> > Requestors: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > Status: new
> > Ticket <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> >
> >
> > Hi, everyone,
> >
> > I am helping the AQM group verify ozone and I need some assistance
in
> using
> > PB2NC (and then later point_stat, but let's start with PB2NC). I
need to
> > be able to read in two quantities from the prepbufr file and then
combine
> > that to be able to compare to the two model items.
> >
> > In the bufr file, the variables at hand are COPO (the ozone
> concentration),
> > and also TPHR. TPHR is either -1 or -8 depending on whether the
observed
> > ozone is a 1-hr or 8-hr average.
> >
> > In essence, we have two entities here depending on the value of
TPHR:
> the
> > 1-hr average ozone and the 8-hr average ozone. But they have the
same
> > value.
> >
> > In the model we also have two variables. Both are called OZCON,
but the
> > first one in the file is a 1-hr average and the second one is the
8-hr
> > average.
> >
> > The trick here is verifying 1-hr average with 1-hr average, and 8-
hr
> > average with 8-hr average. I think there is a multiplication
factor in
> > there somewhere, as the obs are in units of mole/mole, while the
model is
> > in parts per billion (ppb).
> >
> > I don't know if you've spoken with the AQM team on how exactly to
do
> this,
> > but I was hoping to help them with this. If you can advise on how
to do
> > this, that would be great!
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Perry
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: verifying ozone
From: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
Time: Wed Feb 21 08:30:18 2018
Hi, John,
I just transferred some model files and an ob file here on Theia. All
these model files verify at the ob time here. Have a look:
/scratch4/NCEPDEV/meso/save/Perry.Shafran/for_john
Thanks!
Perry
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 6:55 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> Hi Perry,
>
> Can you please point me to a model output file containing the OZCON
> fields? Presumably, these are in GRIB1 or 2 format, and hopefully,
there's
> some flag in the header that will enable us to distinguish between
the GRIB
> records containing 1 and 8 hour averages.
>
> As for the point observations, I suspect that we'll need to add
logic to
> PB2NC to distinguish between the 1 and 8 hour COPO concentrations.
Perhaps
> we could update PB2NC to use the TPHR values to renamed COPO to
COPO_1 and
> COPO_8?
>
> Are these COPO point observations present in NDAS or GDAS PrepBUFR
files?
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:40 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > Tue Feb 20 13:40:01 2018: Request 84134 was acted upon.
> > Transaction: Ticket created by perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > Queue: met_help
> > Subject: verifying ozone
> > Owner: Nobody
> > Requestors: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > Status: new
> > Ticket <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> >
> >
> > Hi, everyone,
> >
> > I am helping the AQM group verify ozone and I need some assistance
in
> using
> > PB2NC (and then later point_stat, but let's start with PB2NC). I
need to
> > be able to read in two quantities from the prepbufr file and then
combine
> > that to be able to compare to the two model items.
> >
> > In the bufr file, the variables at hand are COPO (the ozone
> concentration),
> > and also TPHR. TPHR is either -1 or -8 depending on whether the
observed
> > ozone is a 1-hr or 8-hr average.
> >
> > In essence, we have two entities here depending on the value of
TPHR:
> the
> > 1-hr average ozone and the 8-hr average ozone. But they have the
same
> > value.
> >
> > In the model we also have two variables. Both are called OZCON,
but the
> > first one in the file is a 1-hr average and the second one is the
8-hr
> > average.
> >
> > The trick here is verifying 1-hr average with 1-hr average, and 8-
hr
> > average with 8-hr average. I think there is a multiplication
factor in
> > there somewhere, as the obs are in units of mole/mole, while the
model is
> > in parts per billion (ppb).
> >
> > I don't know if you've spoken with the AQM team on how exactly to
do
> this,
> > but I was hoping to help them with this. If you can advise on how
to do
> > this, that would be great!
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Perry
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: verifying ozone
From: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
Time: Thu Feb 22 12:17:49 2018
Hi, John,
I was just wondering if you have found and received these files.
Thanks!
Perry
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Perry Shafran - NOAA Affiliate <
perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> Hi, John,
>
> I just transferred some model files and an ob file here on Theia.
All
> these model files verify at the ob time here. Have a look:
>
> /scratch4/NCEPDEV/meso/save/Perry.Shafran/for_john
>
> Thanks!
>
> Perry
>
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 6:55 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
>> Hi Perry,
>>
>> Can you please point me to a model output file containing the OZCON
>> fields? Presumably, these are in GRIB1 or 2 format, and hopefully,
>> there's
>> some flag in the header that will enable us to distinguish between
the
>> GRIB
>> records containing 1 and 8 hour averages.
>>
>> As for the point observations, I suspect that we'll need to add
logic to
>> PB2NC to distinguish between the 1 and 8 hour COPO concentrations.
>> Perhaps
>> we could update PB2NC to use the TPHR values to renamed COPO to
COPO_1 and
>> COPO_8?
>>
>> Are these COPO point observations present in NDAS or GDAS PrepBUFR
files?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> John
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:40 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
>> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Tue Feb 20 13:40:01 2018: Request 84134 was acted upon.
>> > Transaction: Ticket created by perry.shafran at noaa.gov
>> > Queue: met_help
>> > Subject: verifying ozone
>> > Owner: Nobody
>> > Requestors: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
>> > Status: new
>> > Ticket <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi, everyone,
>> >
>> > I am helping the AQM group verify ozone and I need some
assistance in
>> using
>> > PB2NC (and then later point_stat, but let's start with PB2NC). I
need
>> to
>> > be able to read in two quantities from the prepbufr file and then
>> combine
>> > that to be able to compare to the two model items.
>> >
>> > In the bufr file, the variables at hand are COPO (the ozone
>> concentration),
>> > and also TPHR. TPHR is either -1 or -8 depending on whether the
>> observed
>> > ozone is a 1-hr or 8-hr average.
>> >
>> > In essence, we have two entities here depending on the value of
TPHR:
>> the
>> > 1-hr average ozone and the 8-hr average ozone. But they have the
same
>> > value.
>> >
>> > In the model we also have two variables. Both are called OZCON,
but the
>> > first one in the file is a 1-hr average and the second one is the
8-hr
>> > average.
>> >
>> > The trick here is verifying 1-hr average with 1-hr average, and
8-hr
>> > average with 8-hr average. I think there is a multiplication
factor in
>> > there somewhere, as the obs are in units of mole/mole, while the
model
>> is
>> > in parts per billion (ppb).
>> >
>> > I don't know if you've spoken with the AQM team on how exactly to
do
>> this,
>> > but I was hoping to help them with this. If you can advise on
how to do
>> > this, that would be great!
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>> >
>> > Perry
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: verifying ozone
From: John Halley Gotway
Time: Thu Feb 22 13:26:10 2018
Perry,
I just grabbed them and ran the forecast data through the
plot_data_plane
utility. Looks like specifying the level as an accumulation type does
the
trick:
/usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_data_plane AWIP3D18.tm00 OZCON_1hr.ps
'name="OZCON"; level="A1";'
/usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_data_plane AWIP3D18.tm00 OZCON_8hr.ps
'name="OZCON"; level="A8";'
The resulting images are attached.
Next, I ran pb2nc using the -index option to see a description of the
prepda contents:
/usr/local/met-6.1/bin/pb2nc prepda.2017081000 <(201)%20708-1000>
prepda.2017081000.nc /usr/local/met-
6.1/share/met/config/PB2NCConfig_default
-index -log pb2nc_index.log
DEBUG 1: Header variables:
DEBUG 1: SID: STATION IDENTIFICATION
DEBUG 1: XOB: LONGITUDE
DEBUG 1: YOB: LATITUDE
DEBUG 1: DHR: OBSERVATION TIME MINUS CYCLE TIME
DEBUG 1: ELV:
DEBUG 1: TYP: PREPBUFR REPORT TYPE
DEBUG 1: T29: DATA DUMP REPORT TYPE
DEBUG 1: ITP:
DEBUG 1:
DEBUG 1: Observation variables:
DEBUG 1: COPO: CONCENTRATION OF
POLLUTANT types: AIRNOW
DEBUG 1: TYPO: TYPE OF POLLUTANT
DEBUG 1: CAT: PREPBUFR DATA LEVEL CATEGORY
DEBUG 1: PROCN: PROCESS NUMBER FOR THIS MPI RUN (OBTAINED FROM
SCRIPT)
DEBUG 1: SQN: REPORT SEQUENCE NUMBER
DEBUG 1: QCIND: QUALITY CONTROL INDICATION OF FOLLOWING
DATA types: AIRNOW
DEBUG 1: TSIG: TIME SIGNIFICANCE
DEBUG 1: RPT: REPORTED OBSERVATION TIME
DEBUG 1: TPHR: TIME PERIOD OR DISPLACEMENT
I see the COPO and TPHR observations listed. We'll need to update the
PB2NC code to handle the logic you've described.
One option for specifying the 1 vs 8 hour difference would be to mimic
how
different precip accumulation intervals are stored for gauges. I'll
look
more into how we might do that.
Thanks,
John
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:17 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
>
> Hi, John,
>
> I was just wondering if you have found and received these files.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Perry
>
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Perry Shafran - NOAA Affiliate <
> perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
>
> > Hi, John,
> >
> > I just transferred some model files and an ob file here on Theia.
All
> > these model files verify at the ob time here. Have a look:
> >
> > /scratch4/NCEPDEV/meso/save/Perry.Shafran/for_john
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Perry
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 6:55 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Perry,
> >>
> >> Can you please point me to a model output file containing the
OZCON
> >> fields? Presumably, these are in GRIB1 or 2 format, and
hopefully,
> >> there's
> >> some flag in the header that will enable us to distinguish
between the
> >> GRIB
> >> records containing 1 and 8 hour averages.
> >>
> >> As for the point observations, I suspect that we'll need to add
logic to
> >> PB2NC to distinguish between the 1 and 8 hour COPO
concentrations.
> >> Perhaps
> >> we could update PB2NC to use the TPHR values to renamed COPO to
COPO_1
> and
> >> COPO_8?
> >>
> >> Are these COPO point observations present in NDAS or GDAS
PrepBUFR
> files?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> John
> >>
> >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:40 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
> >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Tue Feb 20 13:40:01 2018: Request 84134 was acted upon.
> >> > Transaction: Ticket created by perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> >> > Queue: met_help
> >> > Subject: verifying ozone
> >> > Owner: Nobody
> >> > Requestors: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> >> > Status: new
> >> > Ticket <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Hi, everyone,
> >> >
> >> > I am helping the AQM group verify ozone and I need some
assistance in
> >> using
> >> > PB2NC (and then later point_stat, but let's start with PB2NC).
I need
> >> to
> >> > be able to read in two quantities from the prepbufr file and
then
> >> combine
> >> > that to be able to compare to the two model items.
> >> >
> >> > In the bufr file, the variables at hand are COPO (the ozone
> >> concentration),
> >> > and also TPHR. TPHR is either -1 or -8 depending on whether
the
> >> observed
> >> > ozone is a 1-hr or 8-hr average.
> >> >
> >> > In essence, we have two entities here depending on the value of
TPHR:
> >> the
> >> > 1-hr average ozone and the 8-hr average ozone. But they have
the same
> >> > value.
> >> >
> >> > In the model we also have two variables. Both are called
OZCON, but
> the
> >> > first one in the file is a 1-hr average and the second one is
the 8-hr
> >> > average.
> >> >
> >> > The trick here is verifying 1-hr average with 1-hr average, and
8-hr
> >> > average with 8-hr average. I think there is a multiplication
factor
> in
> >> > there somewhere, as the obs are in units of mole/mole, while
the model
> >> is
> >> > in parts per billion (ppb).
> >> >
> >> > I don't know if you've spoken with the AQM team on how exactly
to do
> >> this,
> >> > but I was hoping to help them with this. If you can advise on
how to
> do
> >> > this, that would be great!
> >> >
> >> > Thanks!
> >> >
> >> > Perry
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: verifying ozone
From: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
Time: Thu Feb 22 13:31:53 2018
Hi, John,
OK, thanks! I thought the latest version of MET that we were using
was
configured for the air quality applications?
Perry
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:26 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> Perry,
>
> I just grabbed them and ran the forecast data through the
plot_data_plane
> utility. Looks like specifying the level as an accumulation type
does the
> trick:
>
> /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_data_plane AWIP3D18.tm00 OZCON_1hr.ps
> 'name="OZCON"; level="A1";'
> /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_data_plane AWIP3D18.tm00 OZCON_8hr.ps
> 'name="OZCON"; level="A8";'
>
> The resulting images are attached.
>
> Next, I ran pb2nc using the -index option to see a description of
the
> prepda contents:
>
> /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/pb2nc prepda.2017081000 <(201)%20708-1000>
> prepda.2017081000.nc /usr/local/met-6.1/share/met/
> config/PB2NCConfig_default
> -index -log pb2nc_index.log
>
> DEBUG 1: Header variables:
> DEBUG 1: SID: STATION IDENTIFICATION
> DEBUG 1: XOB: LONGITUDE
> DEBUG 1: YOB: LATITUDE
> DEBUG 1: DHR: OBSERVATION TIME MINUS CYCLE TIME
> DEBUG 1: ELV:
> DEBUG 1: TYP: PREPBUFR REPORT TYPE
> DEBUG 1: T29: DATA DUMP REPORT TYPE
> DEBUG 1: ITP:
> DEBUG 1:
> DEBUG 1: Observation variables:
> DEBUG 1: COPO: CONCENTRATION OF
> POLLUTANT types: AIRNOW
> DEBUG 1: TYPO: TYPE OF POLLUTANT
> DEBUG 1: CAT: PREPBUFR DATA LEVEL CATEGORY
> DEBUG 1: PROCN: PROCESS NUMBER FOR THIS MPI RUN (OBTAINED FROM
> SCRIPT)
> DEBUG 1: SQN: REPORT SEQUENCE NUMBER
> DEBUG 1: QCIND: QUALITY CONTROL INDICATION OF FOLLOWING
> DATA types: AIRNOW
> DEBUG 1: TSIG: TIME SIGNIFICANCE
> DEBUG 1: RPT: REPORTED OBSERVATION TIME
> DEBUG 1: TPHR: TIME PERIOD OR DISPLACEMENT
>
> I see the COPO and TPHR observations listed. We'll need to update
the
> PB2NC code to handle the logic you've described.
>
> One option for specifying the 1 vs 8 hour difference would be to
mimic how
> different precip accumulation intervals are stored for gauges. I'll
look
> more into how we might do that.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:17 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> >
> > Hi, John,
> >
> > I was just wondering if you have found and received these files.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Perry
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Perry Shafran - NOAA Affiliate <
> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi, John,
> > >
> > > I just transferred some model files and an ob file here on
Theia. All
> > > these model files verify at the ob time here. Have a look:
> > >
> > > /scratch4/NCEPDEV/meso/save/Perry.Shafran/for_john
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > Perry
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 6:55 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi Perry,
> > >>
> > >> Can you please point me to a model output file containing the
OZCON
> > >> fields? Presumably, these are in GRIB1 or 2 format, and
hopefully,
> > >> there's
> > >> some flag in the header that will enable us to distinguish
between the
> > >> GRIB
> > >> records containing 1 and 8 hour averages.
> > >>
> > >> As for the point observations, I suspect that we'll need to add
logic
> to
> > >> PB2NC to distinguish between the 1 and 8 hour COPO
concentrations.
> > >> Perhaps
> > >> we could update PB2NC to use the TPHR values to renamed COPO to
COPO_1
> > and
> > >> COPO_8?
> > >>
> > >> Are these COPO point observations present in NDAS or GDAS
PrepBUFR
> > files?
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> John
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:40 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT
<
> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > Tue Feb 20 13:40:01 2018: Request 84134 was acted upon.
> > >> > Transaction: Ticket created by perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > >> > Queue: met_help
> > >> > Subject: verifying ozone
> > >> > Owner: Nobody
> > >> > Requestors: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > >> > Status: new
> > >> > Ticket <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Hi, everyone,
> > >> >
> > >> > I am helping the AQM group verify ozone and I need some
assistance
> in
> > >> using
> > >> > PB2NC (and then later point_stat, but let's start with
PB2NC). I
> need
> > >> to
> > >> > be able to read in two quantities from the prepbufr file and
then
> > >> combine
> > >> > that to be able to compare to the two model items.
> > >> >
> > >> > In the bufr file, the variables at hand are COPO (the ozone
> > >> concentration),
> > >> > and also TPHR. TPHR is either -1 or -8 depending on whether
the
> > >> observed
> > >> > ozone is a 1-hr or 8-hr average.
> > >> >
> > >> > In essence, we have two entities here depending on the value
of
> TPHR:
> > >> the
> > >> > 1-hr average ozone and the 8-hr average ozone. But they have
the
> same
> > >> > value.
> > >> >
> > >> > In the model we also have two variables. Both are called
OZCON, but
> > the
> > >> > first one in the file is a 1-hr average and the second one is
the
> 8-hr
> > >> > average.
> > >> >
> > >> > The trick here is verifying 1-hr average with 1-hr average,
and 8-hr
> > >> > average with 8-hr average. I think there is a multiplication
factor
> > in
> > >> > there somewhere, as the obs are in units of mole/mole, while
the
> model
> > >> is
> > >> > in parts per billion (ppb).
> > >> >
> > >> > I don't know if you've spoken with the AQM team on how
exactly to do
> > >> this,
> > >> > but I was hoping to help them with this. If you can advise
on how
> to
> > do
> > >> > this, that would be great!
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks!
> > >> >
> > >> > Perry
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: verifying ozone
From: John Halley Gotway
Time: Thu Feb 22 13:35:23 2018
Perry,
Until users dive into the details, we won't know about these sorts of
-1 vs
-8 issues. But once we identify the requirements, we can update the
software to handle them.
So please keep the feedback coming.
Thanks,
John
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:31 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
>
> Hi, John,
>
> OK, thanks! I thought the latest version of MET that we were using
was
> configured for the air quality applications?
>
> Perry
>
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:26 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> > Perry,
> >
> > I just grabbed them and ran the forecast data through the
plot_data_plane
> > utility. Looks like specifying the level as an accumulation type
does
> the
> > trick:
> >
> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_data_plane AWIP3D18.tm00 OZCON_1hr.ps
> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A1";'
> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_data_plane AWIP3D18.tm00 OZCON_8hr.ps
> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A8";'
> >
> > The resulting images are attached.
> >
> > Next, I ran pb2nc using the -index option to see a description of
the
> > prepda contents:
> >
> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/pb2nc prepda.2017081000 <(201)%20708-1000>
> > prepda.2017081000.nc /usr/local/met-6.1/share/met/
> > config/PB2NCConfig_default
> > -index -log pb2nc_index.log
> >
> > DEBUG 1: Header variables:
> > DEBUG 1: SID: STATION IDENTIFICATION
> > DEBUG 1: XOB: LONGITUDE
> > DEBUG 1: YOB: LATITUDE
> > DEBUG 1: DHR: OBSERVATION TIME MINUS CYCLE TIME
> > DEBUG 1: ELV:
> > DEBUG 1: TYP: PREPBUFR REPORT TYPE
> > DEBUG 1: T29: DATA DUMP REPORT TYPE
> > DEBUG 1: ITP:
> > DEBUG 1:
> > DEBUG 1: Observation variables:
> > DEBUG 1: COPO: CONCENTRATION OF
> > POLLUTANT types: AIRNOW
> > DEBUG 1: TYPO: TYPE OF POLLUTANT
> > DEBUG 1: CAT: PREPBUFR DATA LEVEL CATEGORY
> > DEBUG 1: PROCN: PROCESS NUMBER FOR THIS MPI RUN (OBTAINED
FROM
> > SCRIPT)
> > DEBUG 1: SQN: REPORT SEQUENCE NUMBER
> > DEBUG 1: QCIND: QUALITY CONTROL INDICATION OF FOLLOWING
> > DATA types: AIRNOW
> > DEBUG 1: TSIG: TIME SIGNIFICANCE
> > DEBUG 1: RPT: REPORTED OBSERVATION TIME
> > DEBUG 1: TPHR: TIME PERIOD OR DISPLACEMENT
> >
> > I see the COPO and TPHR observations listed. We'll need to update
the
> > PB2NC code to handle the logic you've described.
> >
> > One option for specifying the 1 vs 8 hour difference would be to
mimic
> how
> > different precip accumulation intervals are stored for gauges.
I'll look
> > more into how we might do that.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > John
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:17 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> > >
> > > Hi, John,
> > >
> > > I was just wondering if you have found and received these files.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > Perry
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Perry Shafran - NOAA Affiliate
<
> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi, John,
> > > >
> > > > I just transferred some model files and an ob file here on
Theia.
> All
> > > > these model files verify at the ob time here. Have a look:
> > > >
> > > > /scratch4/NCEPDEV/meso/save/Perry.Shafran/for_john
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > Perry
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 6:55 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi Perry,
> > > >>
> > > >> Can you please point me to a model output file containing the
OZCON
> > > >> fields? Presumably, these are in GRIB1 or 2 format, and
hopefully,
> > > >> there's
> > > >> some flag in the header that will enable us to distinguish
between
> the
> > > >> GRIB
> > > >> records containing 1 and 8 hour averages.
> > > >>
> > > >> As for the point observations, I suspect that we'll need to
add
> logic
> > to
> > > >> PB2NC to distinguish between the 1 and 8 hour COPO
concentrations.
> > > >> Perhaps
> > > >> we could update PB2NC to use the TPHR values to renamed COPO
to
> COPO_1
> > > and
> > > >> COPO_8?
> > > >>
> > > >> Are these COPO point observations present in NDAS or GDAS
PrepBUFR
> > > files?
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> John
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:40 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via
RT <
> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Tue Feb 20 13:40:01 2018: Request 84134 was acted upon.
> > > >> > Transaction: Ticket created by perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > >> > Queue: met_help
> > > >> > Subject: verifying ozone
> > > >> > Owner: Nobody
> > > >> > Requestors: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > >> > Status: new
> > > >> > Ticket <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Hi, everyone,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I am helping the AQM group verify ozone and I need some
assistance
> > in
> > > >> using
> > > >> > PB2NC (and then later point_stat, but let's start with
PB2NC). I
> > need
> > > >> to
> > > >> > be able to read in two quantities from the prepbufr file
and then
> > > >> combine
> > > >> > that to be able to compare to the two model items.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > In the bufr file, the variables at hand are COPO (the ozone
> > > >> concentration),
> > > >> > and also TPHR. TPHR is either -1 or -8 depending on
whether the
> > > >> observed
> > > >> > ozone is a 1-hr or 8-hr average.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > In essence, we have two entities here depending on the
value of
> > TPHR:
> > > >> the
> > > >> > 1-hr average ozone and the 8-hr average ozone. But they
have the
> > same
> > > >> > value.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > In the model we also have two variables. Both are called
OZCON,
> but
> > > the
> > > >> > first one in the file is a 1-hr average and the second one
is the
> > 8-hr
> > > >> > average.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > The trick here is verifying 1-hr average with 1-hr average,
and
> 8-hr
> > > >> > average with 8-hr average. I think there is a
multiplication
> factor
> > > in
> > > >> > there somewhere, as the obs are in units of mole/mole,
while the
> > model
> > > >> is
> > > >> > in parts per billion (ppb).
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I don't know if you've spoken with the AQM team on how
exactly to
> do
> > > >> this,
> > > >> > but I was hoping to help them with this. If you can advise
on how
> > to
> > > do
> > > >> > this, that would be great!
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thanks!
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Perry
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: verifying ozone
From: John Halley Gotway
Time: Thu Feb 22 13:50:12 2018
Perry,
I wanted to check how point observations of precip are stored in
PrepBUFR
so I ran PB2NC on an old NDAS file using the -index option. Here's
what I
found:
DEBUG 1: TP06: TOTAL PRECIPITATION PAST 6
HOURS types: ADPSFC
DEBUG 1: TP24: TOTAL PRECIPITATION PAST 24
HOURS types: ADPSFC
So basically, the accumulation interval exists in the observation
variable
name. Following that paradigm, if the AIRNOW observations were stored
using COPO01 and COPO08, then MET would already be able to handle them
already. But I suppose we're likely stuck with what we've got.
I can see 2 ways we could handle this for processing AIRNOW message
types...
Option 1: Follow the precip example and modify the observation
variable
names by appending the TPHR value. Instead of COPO, we'd have
observations
named COPO01 and COPO08. And if we ever see TPHR = -24, that'd
produce a
COPO24 variable name.
Option 2: We could keep the COPO variable name unchanged, and instead
set
the "level" value for these observations to indicate the accumulation
interval. If you look at the ascii2nc usage statement, you'll see the
following:
"Level" is the pressure level (hPa) or accumulation interval
(HH[MMSS]).
So we could use the value of TPHR to define the level as an
"accumulation"
interval.
Either option could be made to work in MET. Does one make more sense
to
you than the other?
While we're doing this, I assume we should also using the QCIND value
to
populate the obs_qty (i.e. quality control) setting?
Thanks,
John
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:34 PM, John Halley Gotway <johnhg at ucar.edu>
wrote:
> Perry,
>
> Until users dive into the details, we won't know about these sorts
of -1
> vs -8 issues. But once we identify the requirements, we can update
the
> software to handle them.
>
> So please keep the feedback coming.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:31 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
>>
>> Hi, John,
>>
>> OK, thanks! I thought the latest version of MET that we were using
was
>> configured for the air quality applications?
>>
>> Perry
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:26 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
>> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > Perry,
>> >
>> > I just grabbed them and ran the forecast data through the
>> plot_data_plane
>> > utility. Looks like specifying the level as an accumulation type
does
>> the
>> > trick:
>> >
>> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_data_plane AWIP3D18.tm00 OZCON_1hr.ps
>> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A1";'
>> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_data_plane AWIP3D18.tm00 OZCON_8hr.ps
>> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A8";'
>> >
>> > The resulting images are attached.
>> >
>> > Next, I ran pb2nc using the -index option to see a description of
the
>> > prepda contents:
>> >
>> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/pb2nc prepda.2017081000 <(201)%20708-1000>
>> > prepda.2017081000.nc /usr/local/met-6.1/share/met/
>> > config/PB2NCConfig_default
>> > -index -log pb2nc_index.log
>> >
>> > DEBUG 1: Header variables:
>> > DEBUG 1: SID: STATION IDENTIFICATION
>> > DEBUG 1: XOB: LONGITUDE
>> > DEBUG 1: YOB: LATITUDE
>> > DEBUG 1: DHR: OBSERVATION TIME MINUS CYCLE TIME
>> > DEBUG 1: ELV:
>> > DEBUG 1: TYP: PREPBUFR REPORT TYPE
>> > DEBUG 1: T29: DATA DUMP REPORT TYPE
>> > DEBUG 1: ITP:
>> > DEBUG 1:
>> > DEBUG 1: Observation variables:
>> > DEBUG 1: COPO: CONCENTRATION OF
>> > POLLUTANT types: AIRNOW
>> > DEBUG 1: TYPO: TYPE OF POLLUTANT
>> > DEBUG 1: CAT: PREPBUFR DATA LEVEL CATEGORY
>> > DEBUG 1: PROCN: PROCESS NUMBER FOR THIS MPI RUN (OBTAINED
FROM
>> > SCRIPT)
>> > DEBUG 1: SQN: REPORT SEQUENCE NUMBER
>> > DEBUG 1: QCIND: QUALITY CONTROL INDICATION OF FOLLOWING
>> > DATA types: AIRNOW
>> > DEBUG 1: TSIG: TIME SIGNIFICANCE
>> > DEBUG 1: RPT: REPORTED OBSERVATION TIME
>> > DEBUG 1: TPHR: TIME PERIOD OR DISPLACEMENT
>> >
>> > I see the COPO and TPHR observations listed. We'll need to
update the
>> > PB2NC code to handle the logic you've described.
>> >
>> > One option for specifying the 1 vs 8 hour difference would be to
mimic
>> how
>> > different precip accumulation intervals are stored for gauges.
I'll
>> look
>> > more into how we might do that.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > John
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:17 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
>> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
>> > >
>> > > Hi, John,
>> > >
>> > > I was just wondering if you have found and received these
files.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks!
>> > >
>> > > Perry
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Perry Shafran - NOAA
Affiliate <
>> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Hi, John,
>> > > >
>> > > > I just transferred some model files and an ob file here on
Theia.
>> All
>> > > > these model files verify at the ob time here. Have a look:
>> > > >
>> > > > /scratch4/NCEPDEV/meso/save/Perry.Shafran/for_john
>> > > >
>> > > > Thanks!
>> > > >
>> > > > Perry
>> > > >
>> > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 6:55 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
>> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> Hi Perry,
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Can you please point me to a model output file containing
the OZCON
>> > > >> fields? Presumably, these are in GRIB1 or 2 format, and
hopefully,
>> > > >> there's
>> > > >> some flag in the header that will enable us to distinguish
between
>> the
>> > > >> GRIB
>> > > >> records containing 1 and 8 hour averages.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> As for the point observations, I suspect that we'll need to
add
>> logic
>> > to
>> > > >> PB2NC to distinguish between the 1 and 8 hour COPO
concentrations.
>> > > >> Perhaps
>> > > >> we could update PB2NC to use the TPHR values to renamed COPO
to
>> COPO_1
>> > > and
>> > > >> COPO_8?
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Are these COPO point observations present in NDAS or GDAS
PrepBUFR
>> > > files?
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Thanks,
>> > > >> John
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:40 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via
RT <
>> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Tue Feb 20 13:40:01 2018: Request 84134 was acted upon.
>> > > >> > Transaction: Ticket created by perry.shafran at noaa.gov
>> > > >> > Queue: met_help
>> > > >> > Subject: verifying ozone
>> > > >> > Owner: Nobody
>> > > >> > Requestors: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
>> > > >> > Status: new
>> > > >> > Ticket <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
>> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
>> > > >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Hi, everyone,
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > I am helping the AQM group verify ozone and I need some
>> assistance
>> > in
>> > > >> using
>> > > >> > PB2NC (and then later point_stat, but let's start with
PB2NC). I
>> > need
>> > > >> to
>> > > >> > be able to read in two quantities from the prepbufr file
and then
>> > > >> combine
>> > > >> > that to be able to compare to the two model items.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > In the bufr file, the variables at hand are COPO (the
ozone
>> > > >> concentration),
>> > > >> > and also TPHR. TPHR is either -1 or -8 depending on
whether the
>> > > >> observed
>> > > >> > ozone is a 1-hr or 8-hr average.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > In essence, we have two entities here depending on the
value of
>> > TPHR:
>> > > >> the
>> > > >> > 1-hr average ozone and the 8-hr average ozone. But they
have the
>> > same
>> > > >> > value.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > In the model we also have two variables. Both are called
OZCON,
>> but
>> > > the
>> > > >> > first one in the file is a 1-hr average and the second one
is the
>> > 8-hr
>> > > >> > average.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > The trick here is verifying 1-hr average with 1-hr
average, and
>> 8-hr
>> > > >> > average with 8-hr average. I think there is a
multiplication
>> factor
>> > > in
>> > > >> > there somewhere, as the obs are in units of mole/mole,
while the
>> > model
>> > > >> is
>> > > >> > in parts per billion (ppb).
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > I don't know if you've spoken with the AQM team on how
exactly
>> to do
>> > > >> this,
>> > > >> > but I was hoping to help them with this. If you can
advise on
>> how
>> > to
>> > > do
>> > > >> > this, that would be great!
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Thanks!
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Perry
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: verifying ozone
From: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
Time: Thu Feb 22 14:00:39 2018
Hi, John,
What would be easier in comparing to the model output, do you think?
I
think that having it as some sort of "accumulation variable" (the 2nd
option) would work.
In the model, though, they are not listed as either 1 or 8 hr
accumulations/averages. They are listed as either, for example for
the 24
hr forecast, either "23-24 hr ave fcst" or "16-24 hr ave fcst". Would
be
easier if it said "1 hr ave fcst" or "8 hr ave fcst", but again,
that's not
what we got. So I'm guessing that might make it a little more
challenging
for the model to script up?
Perry
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:50 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> Perry,
>
> I wanted to check how point observations of precip are stored in
PrepBUFR
> so I ran PB2NC on an old NDAS file using the -index option. Here's
what I
> found:
>
> DEBUG 1: TP06: TOTAL PRECIPITATION PAST 6
> HOURS types: ADPSFC
> DEBUG 1: TP24: TOTAL PRECIPITATION PAST 24
> HOURS types: ADPSFC
>
> So basically, the accumulation interval exists in the observation
variable
> name. Following that paradigm, if the AIRNOW observations were
stored
> using COPO01 and COPO08, then MET would already be able to handle
them
> already. But I suppose we're likely stuck with what we've got.
>
> I can see 2 ways we could handle this for processing AIRNOW message
> types...
>
> Option 1: Follow the precip example and modify the observation
variable
> names by appending the TPHR value. Instead of COPO, we'd have
observations
> named COPO01 and COPO08. And if we ever see TPHR = -24, that'd
produce a
> COPO24 variable name.
>
> Option 2: We could keep the COPO variable name unchanged, and
instead set
> the "level" value for these observations to indicate the
accumulation
> interval. If you look at the ascii2nc usage statement, you'll see
the
> following:
> "Level" is the pressure level (hPa) or accumulation interval
(HH[MMSS]).
>
> So we could use the value of TPHR to define the level as an
"accumulation"
> interval.
>
> Either option could be made to work in MET. Does one make more
sense to
> you than the other?
>
> While we're doing this, I assume we should also using the QCIND
value to
> populate the obs_qty (i.e. quality control) setting?
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:34 PM, John Halley Gotway
<johnhg at ucar.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > Perry,
> >
> > Until users dive into the details, we won't know about these sorts
of -1
> > vs -8 issues. But once we identify the requirements, we can
update the
> > software to handle them.
> >
> > So please keep the feedback coming.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > John
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:31 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> >>
> >> Hi, John,
> >>
> >> OK, thanks! I thought the latest version of MET that we were
using was
> >> configured for the air quality applications?
> >>
> >> Perry
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:26 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Perry,
> >> >
> >> > I just grabbed them and ran the forecast data through the
> >> plot_data_plane
> >> > utility. Looks like specifying the level as an accumulation
type does
> >> the
> >> > trick:
> >> >
> >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_data_plane AWIP3D18.tm00
OZCON_1hr.ps
> >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A1";'
> >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_data_plane AWIP3D18.tm00
OZCON_8hr.ps
> >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A8";'
> >> >
> >> > The resulting images are attached.
> >> >
> >> > Next, I ran pb2nc using the -index option to see a description
of the
> >> > prepda contents:
> >> >
> >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/pb2nc prepda.2017081000 <(201)%20708-
1000>
> >> > prepda.2017081000.nc /usr/local/met-6.1/share/met/
> >> > config/PB2NCConfig_default
> >> > -index -log pb2nc_index.log
> >> >
> >> > DEBUG 1: Header variables:
> >> > DEBUG 1: SID: STATION IDENTIFICATION
> >> > DEBUG 1: XOB: LONGITUDE
> >> > DEBUG 1: YOB: LATITUDE
> >> > DEBUG 1: DHR: OBSERVATION TIME MINUS CYCLE TIME
> >> > DEBUG 1: ELV:
> >> > DEBUG 1: TYP: PREPBUFR REPORT TYPE
> >> > DEBUG 1: T29: DATA DUMP REPORT TYPE
> >> > DEBUG 1: ITP:
> >> > DEBUG 1:
> >> > DEBUG 1: Observation variables:
> >> > DEBUG 1: COPO: CONCENTRATION OF
> >> > POLLUTANT types: AIRNOW
> >> > DEBUG 1: TYPO: TYPE OF POLLUTANT
> >> > DEBUG 1: CAT: PREPBUFR DATA LEVEL CATEGORY
> >> > DEBUG 1: PROCN: PROCESS NUMBER FOR THIS MPI RUN (OBTAINED
FROM
> >> > SCRIPT)
> >> > DEBUG 1: SQN: REPORT SEQUENCE NUMBER
> >> > DEBUG 1: QCIND: QUALITY CONTROL INDICATION OF FOLLOWING
> >> > DATA types: AIRNOW
> >> > DEBUG 1: TSIG: TIME SIGNIFICANCE
> >> > DEBUG 1: RPT: REPORTED OBSERVATION TIME
> >> > DEBUG 1: TPHR: TIME PERIOD OR DISPLACEMENT
> >> >
> >> > I see the COPO and TPHR observations listed. We'll need to
update the
> >> > PB2NC code to handle the logic you've described.
> >> >
> >> > One option for specifying the 1 vs 8 hour difference would be
to mimic
> >> how
> >> > different precip accumulation intervals are stored for gauges.
I'll
> >> look
> >> > more into how we might do that.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > John
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:17 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT
<
> >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
>
> >> > >
> >> > > Hi, John,
> >> > >
> >> > > I was just wondering if you have found and received these
files.
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks!
> >> > >
> >> > > Perry
> >> > >
> >> > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Perry Shafran - NOAA
Affiliate <
> >> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Hi, John,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I just transferred some model files and an ob file here on
Theia.
> >> All
> >> > > > these model files verify at the ob time here. Have a look:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > /scratch4/NCEPDEV/meso/save/Perry.Shafran/for_john
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Thanks!
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Perry
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 6:55 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT
<
> >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> Hi Perry,
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Can you please point me to a model output file containing
the
> OZCON
> >> > > >> fields? Presumably, these are in GRIB1 or 2 format, and
> hopefully,
> >> > > >> there's
> >> > > >> some flag in the header that will enable us to distinguish
> between
> >> the
> >> > > >> GRIB
> >> > > >> records containing 1 and 8 hour averages.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> As for the point observations, I suspect that we'll need
to add
> >> logic
> >> > to
> >> > > >> PB2NC to distinguish between the 1 and 8 hour COPO
> concentrations.
> >> > > >> Perhaps
> >> > > >> we could update PB2NC to use the TPHR values to renamed
COPO to
> >> COPO_1
> >> > > and
> >> > > >> COPO_8?
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Are these COPO point observations present in NDAS or GDAS
> PrepBUFR
> >> > > files?
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Thanks,
> >> > > >> John
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:40 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov
via RT <
> >> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > Tue Feb 20 13:40:01 2018: Request 84134 was acted upon.
> >> > > >> > Transaction: Ticket created by perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> >> > > >> > Queue: met_help
> >> > > >> > Subject: verifying ozone
> >> > > >> > Owner: Nobody
> >> > > >> > Requestors: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> >> > > >> > Status: new
> >> > > >> > Ticket <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > Hi, everyone,
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > I am helping the AQM group verify ozone and I need some
> >> assistance
> >> > in
> >> > > >> using
> >> > > >> > PB2NC (and then later point_stat, but let's start with
> PB2NC). I
> >> > need
> >> > > >> to
> >> > > >> > be able to read in two quantities from the prepbufr file
and
> then
> >> > > >> combine
> >> > > >> > that to be able to compare to the two model items.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > In the bufr file, the variables at hand are COPO (the
ozone
> >> > > >> concentration),
> >> > > >> > and also TPHR. TPHR is either -1 or -8 depending on
whether
> the
> >> > > >> observed
> >> > > >> > ozone is a 1-hr or 8-hr average.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > In essence, we have two entities here depending on the
value of
> >> > TPHR:
> >> > > >> the
> >> > > >> > 1-hr average ozone and the 8-hr average ozone. But they
have
> the
> >> > same
> >> > > >> > value.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > In the model we also have two variables. Both are
called
> OZCON,
> >> but
> >> > > the
> >> > > >> > first one in the file is a 1-hr average and the second
one is
> the
> >> > 8-hr
> >> > > >> > average.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > The trick here is verifying 1-hr average with 1-hr
average, and
> >> 8-hr
> >> > > >> > average with 8-hr average. I think there is a
multiplication
> >> factor
> >> > > in
> >> > > >> > there somewhere, as the obs are in units of mole/mole,
while
> the
> >> > model
> >> > > >> is
> >> > > >> > in parts per billion (ppb).
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > I don't know if you've spoken with the AQM team on how
exactly
> >> to do
> >> > > >> this,
> >> > > >> > but I was hoping to help them with this. If you can
advise on
> >> how
> >> > to
> >> > > do
> >> > > >> > this, that would be great!
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > Thanks!
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > Perry
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: verifying ozone
From: John Halley Gotway
Time: Thu Feb 22 14:06:26 2018
Perry,
I think I prefer option 2 as well. I'll ask Howard Soh, one of the
developers here, to add specific logic for the AIRNOW message type,
where...
- level = absolute value of TPHR
- qc flag = QCIND
John
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:00 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
>
> Hi, John,
>
> What would be easier in comparing to the model output, do you think?
I
> think that having it as some sort of "accumulation variable" (the
2nd
> option) would work.
>
> In the model, though, they are not listed as either 1 or 8 hr
> accumulations/averages. They are listed as either, for example for
the 24
> hr forecast, either "23-24 hr ave fcst" or "16-24 hr ave fcst".
Would be
> easier if it said "1 hr ave fcst" or "8 hr ave fcst", but again,
that's not
> what we got. So I'm guessing that might make it a little more
challenging
> for the model to script up?
>
> Perry
>
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:50 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> > Perry,
> >
> > I wanted to check how point observations of precip are stored in
PrepBUFR
> > so I ran PB2NC on an old NDAS file using the -index option.
Here's what
> I
> > found:
> >
> > DEBUG 1: TP06: TOTAL PRECIPITATION PAST 6
> > HOURS types: ADPSFC
> > DEBUG 1: TP24: TOTAL PRECIPITATION PAST 24
> > HOURS types: ADPSFC
> >
> > So basically, the accumulation interval exists in the observation
> variable
> > name. Following that paradigm, if the AIRNOW observations were
stored
> > using COPO01 and COPO08, then MET would already be able to handle
them
> > already. But I suppose we're likely stuck with what we've got.
> >
> > I can see 2 ways we could handle this for processing AIRNOW
message
> > types...
> >
> > Option 1: Follow the precip example and modify the observation
variable
> > names by appending the TPHR value. Instead of COPO, we'd have
> observations
> > named COPO01 and COPO08. And if we ever see TPHR = -24, that'd
produce a
> > COPO24 variable name.
> >
> > Option 2: We could keep the COPO variable name unchanged, and
instead set
> > the "level" value for these observations to indicate the
accumulation
> > interval. If you look at the ascii2nc usage statement, you'll see
the
> > following:
> > "Level" is the pressure level (hPa) or accumulation interval
> (HH[MMSS]).
> >
> > So we could use the value of TPHR to define the level as an
> "accumulation"
> > interval.
> >
> > Either option could be made to work in MET. Does one make more
sense to
> > you than the other?
> >
> > While we're doing this, I assume we should also using the QCIND
value to
> > populate the obs_qty (i.e. quality control) setting?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > John
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:34 PM, John Halley Gotway
<johnhg at ucar.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Perry,
> > >
> > > Until users dive into the details, we won't know about these
sorts of
> -1
> > > vs -8 issues. But once we identify the requirements, we can
update the
> > > software to handle them.
> > >
> > > So please keep the feedback coming.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > John
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:31 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> > >>
> > >> Hi, John,
> > >>
> > >> OK, thanks! I thought the latest version of MET that we were
using
> was
> > >> configured for the air quality applications?
> > >>
> > >> Perry
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:26 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Perry,
> > >> >
> > >> > I just grabbed them and ran the forecast data through the
> > >> plot_data_plane
> > >> > utility. Looks like specifying the level as an accumulation
type
> does
> > >> the
> > >> > trick:
> > >> >
> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_data_plane AWIP3D18.tm00
OZCON_1hr.ps
> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A1";'
> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_data_plane AWIP3D18.tm00
OZCON_8hr.ps
> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A8";'
> > >> >
> > >> > The resulting images are attached.
> > >> >
> > >> > Next, I ran pb2nc using the -index option to see a
description of
> the
> > >> > prepda contents:
> > >> >
> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/pb2nc prepda.2017081000 <(201)%20708-
1000>
> > >> > prepda.2017081000.nc /usr/local/met-6.1/share/met/
> > >> > config/PB2NCConfig_default
> > >> > -index -log pb2nc_index.log
> > >> >
> > >> > DEBUG 1: Header variables:
> > >> > DEBUG 1: SID: STATION IDENTIFICATION
> > >> > DEBUG 1: XOB: LONGITUDE
> > >> > DEBUG 1: YOB: LATITUDE
> > >> > DEBUG 1: DHR: OBSERVATION TIME MINUS CYCLE TIME
> > >> > DEBUG 1: ELV:
> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYP: PREPBUFR REPORT TYPE
> > >> > DEBUG 1: T29: DATA DUMP REPORT TYPE
> > >> > DEBUG 1: ITP:
> > >> > DEBUG 1:
> > >> > DEBUG 1: Observation variables:
> > >> > DEBUG 1: COPO: CONCENTRATION OF
> > >> > POLLUTANT types: AIRNOW
> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYPO: TYPE OF POLLUTANT
> > >> > DEBUG 1: CAT: PREPBUFR DATA LEVEL CATEGORY
> > >> > DEBUG 1: PROCN: PROCESS NUMBER FOR THIS MPI RUN
(OBTAINED FROM
> > >> > SCRIPT)
> > >> > DEBUG 1: SQN: REPORT SEQUENCE NUMBER
> > >> > DEBUG 1: QCIND: QUALITY CONTROL INDICATION OF FOLLOWING
> > >> > DATA types: AIRNOW
> > >> > DEBUG 1: TSIG: TIME SIGNIFICANCE
> > >> > DEBUG 1: RPT: REPORTED OBSERVATION TIME
> > >> > DEBUG 1: TPHR: TIME PERIOD OR DISPLACEMENT
> > >> >
> > >> > I see the COPO and TPHR observations listed. We'll need to
update
> the
> > >> > PB2NC code to handle the logic you've described.
> > >> >
> > >> > One option for specifying the 1 vs 8 hour difference would be
to
> mimic
> > >> how
> > >> > different precip accumulation intervals are stored for
gauges. I'll
> > >> look
> > >> > more into how we might do that.
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks,
> > >> > John
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:17 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via
RT <
> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Hi, John,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I was just wondering if you have found and received these
files.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Thanks!
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Perry
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Perry Shafran - NOAA
Affiliate <
> > >> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > I just transferred some model files and an ob file here
on
> Theia.
> > >> All
> > >> > > > these model files verify at the ob time here. Have a
look:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > /scratch4/NCEPDEV/meso/save/Perry.Shafran/for_john
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Thanks!
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Perry
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 6:55 PM, John Halley Gotway via
RT <
> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >> Hi Perry,
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> Can you please point me to a model output file
containing the
> > OZCON
> > >> > > >> fields? Presumably, these are in GRIB1 or 2 format, and
> > hopefully,
> > >> > > >> there's
> > >> > > >> some flag in the header that will enable us to
distinguish
> > between
> > >> the
> > >> > > >> GRIB
> > >> > > >> records containing 1 and 8 hour averages.
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> As for the point observations, I suspect that we'll need
to add
> > >> logic
> > >> > to
> > >> > > >> PB2NC to distinguish between the 1 and 8 hour COPO
> > concentrations.
> > >> > > >> Perhaps
> > >> > > >> we could update PB2NC to use the TPHR values to renamed
COPO to
> > >> COPO_1
> > >> > > and
> > >> > > >> COPO_8?
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> Are these COPO point observations present in NDAS or
GDAS
> > PrepBUFR
> > >> > > files?
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> Thanks,
> > >> > > >> John
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:40 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov
via
> RT <
> > >> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > Tue Feb 20 13:40:01 2018: Request 84134 was acted
upon.
> > >> > > >> > Transaction: Ticket created by perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > >> > > >> > Queue: met_help
> > >> > > >> > Subject: verifying ozone
> > >> > > >> > Owner: Nobody
> > >> > > >> > Requestors: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > >> > > >> > Status: new
> > >> > > >> > Ticket <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > Hi, everyone,
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > I am helping the AQM group verify ozone and I need
some
> > >> assistance
> > >> > in
> > >> > > >> using
> > >> > > >> > PB2NC (and then later point_stat, but let's start with
> > PB2NC). I
> > >> > need
> > >> > > >> to
> > >> > > >> > be able to read in two quantities from the prepbufr
file and
> > then
> > >> > > >> combine
> > >> > > >> > that to be able to compare to the two model items.
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > In the bufr file, the variables at hand are COPO (the
ozone
> > >> > > >> concentration),
> > >> > > >> > and also TPHR. TPHR is either -1 or -8 depending on
whether
> > the
> > >> > > >> observed
> > >> > > >> > ozone is a 1-hr or 8-hr average.
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > In essence, we have two entities here depending on the
value
> of
> > >> > TPHR:
> > >> > > >> the
> > >> > > >> > 1-hr average ozone and the 8-hr average ozone. But
they have
> > the
> > >> > same
> > >> > > >> > value.
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > In the model we also have two variables. Both are
called
> > OZCON,
> > >> but
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > >> > first one in the file is a 1-hr average and the second
one is
> > the
> > >> > 8-hr
> > >> > > >> > average.
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > The trick here is verifying 1-hr average with 1-hr
average,
> and
> > >> 8-hr
> > >> > > >> > average with 8-hr average. I think there is a
multiplication
> > >> factor
> > >> > > in
> > >> > > >> > there somewhere, as the obs are in units of mole/mole,
while
> > the
> > >> > model
> > >> > > >> is
> > >> > > >> > in parts per billion (ppb).
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > I don't know if you've spoken with the AQM team on how
> exactly
> > >> to do
> > >> > > >> this,
> > >> > > >> > but I was hoping to help them with this. If you can
advise
> on
> > >> how
> > >> > to
> > >> > > do
> > >> > > >> > this, that would be great!
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > Thanks!
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > Perry
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: verifying ozone
From: John Halley Gotway
Time: Fri Mar 02 13:32:36 2018
Hi Perry,
Howard Soh updated the logic in the PB2NC to handle the 1 and 8-hour
COPO
observations in the way we discussed. I wanted to let you know that I
tested it this afternoon and got some good results. The sample
fcst/obs
data you sent doesn't line up well in time, so I just set a very large
matching time window in Point-Stat.
Here's the relevant pieces of the Point-Stat config file:
fcst = {
field = [
{ name = "OZCON"; level = "A01"; },
{ name = "OZCON"; level = "A08"; }
];
}
obs = {
message_type = [ "AIRNOW" ];
convert(x) = x*10^9;
field = [
{ name = "COPO"; level = "A01"; },
{ name = "COPO"; level = "A08"; }
];
}
And I'm just *guessing* at that conversion factor. The resulting
numbers
look about right, but its up to you to confirm. Using the sample data
you
sent me, this results in a mean error value of 12.64 and 15.48 for the
1
and 8-hour accums, respectively. But the fcst/obs data are actually
offset
by 12 hours so these numbers don't mean much, other than demonstrating
there isn't a huge order of magnitude difference.
Thanks,
John
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:06 PM, John Halley Gotway <johnhg at ucar.edu>
wrote:
> Perry,
>
> I think I prefer option 2 as well. I'll ask Howard Soh, one of the
> developers here, to add specific logic for the AIRNOW message type,
where...
> - level = absolute value of TPHR
> - qc flag = QCIND
>
> John
>
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:00 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
>>
>> Hi, John,
>>
>> What would be easier in comparing to the model output, do you
think? I
>> think that having it as some sort of "accumulation variable" (the
2nd
>> option) would work.
>>
>> In the model, though, they are not listed as either 1 or 8 hr
>> accumulations/averages. They are listed as either, for example for
the 24
>> hr forecast, either "23-24 hr ave fcst" or "16-24 hr ave fcst".
Would be
>> easier if it said "1 hr ave fcst" or "8 hr ave fcst", but again,
that's
>> not
>> what we got. So I'm guessing that might make it a little more
challenging
>> for the model to script up?
>>
>> Perry
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:50 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
>> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > Perry,
>> >
>> > I wanted to check how point observations of precip are stored in
>> PrepBUFR
>> > so I ran PB2NC on an old NDAS file using the -index option.
Here's
>> what I
>> > found:
>> >
>> > DEBUG 1: TP06: TOTAL PRECIPITATION PAST 6
>> > HOURS types: ADPSFC
>> > DEBUG 1: TP24: TOTAL PRECIPITATION PAST 24
>> > HOURS types: ADPSFC
>> >
>> > So basically, the accumulation interval exists in the observation
>> variable
>> > name. Following that paradigm, if the AIRNOW observations were
stored
>> > using COPO01 and COPO08, then MET would already be able to handle
them
>> > already. But I suppose we're likely stuck with what we've got.
>> >
>> > I can see 2 ways we could handle this for processing AIRNOW
message
>> > types...
>> >
>> > Option 1: Follow the precip example and modify the observation
variable
>> > names by appending the TPHR value. Instead of COPO, we'd have
>> observations
>> > named COPO01 and COPO08. And if we ever see TPHR = -24, that'd
produce
>> a
>> > COPO24 variable name.
>> >
>> > Option 2: We could keep the COPO variable name unchanged, and
instead
>> set
>> > the "level" value for these observations to indicate the
accumulation
>> > interval. If you look at the ascii2nc usage statement, you'll
see the
>> > following:
>> > "Level" is the pressure level (hPa) or accumulation interval
>> (HH[MMSS]).
>> >
>> > So we could use the value of TPHR to define the level as an
>> "accumulation"
>> > interval.
>> >
>> > Either option could be made to work in MET. Does one make more
sense to
>> > you than the other?
>> >
>> > While we're doing this, I assume we should also using the QCIND
value to
>> > populate the obs_qty (i.e. quality control) setting?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > John
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:34 PM, John Halley Gotway
<johnhg at ucar.edu>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Perry,
>> > >
>> > > Until users dive into the details, we won't know about these
sorts of
>> -1
>> > > vs -8 issues. But once we identify the requirements, we can
update
>> the
>> > > software to handle them.
>> > >
>> > > So please keep the feedback coming.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > John
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:31 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT
<
>> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
>
>> > >>
>> > >> Hi, John,
>> > >>
>> > >> OK, thanks! I thought the latest version of MET that we were
using
>> was
>> > >> configured for the air quality applications?
>> > >>
>> > >> Perry
>> > >>
>> > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:26 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
>> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > Perry,
>> > >> >
>> > >> > I just grabbed them and ran the forecast data through the
>> > >> plot_data_plane
>> > >> > utility. Looks like specifying the level as an accumulation
type
>> does
>> > >> the
>> > >> > trick:
>> > >> >
>> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_data_plane AWIP3D18.tm00
OZCON_1hr.ps
>> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A1";'
>> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_data_plane AWIP3D18.tm00
OZCON_8hr.ps
>> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A8";'
>> > >> >
>> > >> > The resulting images are attached.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Next, I ran pb2nc using the -index option to see a
description of
>> the
>> > >> > prepda contents:
>> > >> >
>> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/pb2nc prepda.2017081000 <(201)%20708-
1000>
>> <(201)%20708-1000>
>> > >> > prepda.2017081000.nc /usr/local/met-6.1/share/met/
>> > >> > config/PB2NCConfig_default
>> > >> > -index -log pb2nc_index.log
>> > >> >
>> > >> > DEBUG 1: Header variables:
>> > >> > DEBUG 1: SID: STATION IDENTIFICATION
>> > >> > DEBUG 1: XOB: LONGITUDE
>> > >> > DEBUG 1: YOB: LATITUDE
>> > >> > DEBUG 1: DHR: OBSERVATION TIME MINUS CYCLE TIME
>> > >> > DEBUG 1: ELV:
>> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYP: PREPBUFR REPORT TYPE
>> > >> > DEBUG 1: T29: DATA DUMP REPORT TYPE
>> > >> > DEBUG 1: ITP:
>> > >> > DEBUG 1:
>> > >> > DEBUG 1: Observation variables:
>> > >> > DEBUG 1: COPO: CONCENTRATION OF
>> > >> > POLLUTANT types: AIRNOW
>> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYPO: TYPE OF POLLUTANT
>> > >> > DEBUG 1: CAT: PREPBUFR DATA LEVEL CATEGORY
>> > >> > DEBUG 1: PROCN: PROCESS NUMBER FOR THIS MPI RUN
(OBTAINED
>> FROM
>> > >> > SCRIPT)
>> > >> > DEBUG 1: SQN: REPORT SEQUENCE NUMBER
>> > >> > DEBUG 1: QCIND: QUALITY CONTROL INDICATION OF
FOLLOWING
>> > >> > DATA types: AIRNOW
>> > >> > DEBUG 1: TSIG: TIME SIGNIFICANCE
>> > >> > DEBUG 1: RPT: REPORTED OBSERVATION TIME
>> > >> > DEBUG 1: TPHR: TIME PERIOD OR DISPLACEMENT
>> > >> >
>> > >> > I see the COPO and TPHR observations listed. We'll need to
update
>> the
>> > >> > PB2NC code to handle the logic you've described.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > One option for specifying the 1 vs 8 hour difference would
be to
>> mimic
>> > >> how
>> > >> > different precip accumulation intervals are stored for
gauges.
>> I'll
>> > >> look
>> > >> > more into how we might do that.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Thanks,
>> > >> > John
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:17 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via
RT <
>> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > Hi, John,
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > I was just wondering if you have found and received these
files.
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > Thanks!
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > Perry
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Perry Shafran - NOAA
Affiliate
>> <
>> > >> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > > Hi, John,
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > I just transferred some model files and an ob file here
on
>> Theia.
>> > >> All
>> > >> > > > these model files verify at the ob time here. Have a
look:
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > /scratch4/NCEPDEV/meso/save/Perry.Shafran/for_john
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > Thanks!
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > Perry
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 6:55 PM, John Halley Gotway via
RT <
>> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > >> Hi Perry,
>> > >> > > >>
>> > >> > > >> Can you please point me to a model output file
containing the
>> > OZCON
>> > >> > > >> fields? Presumably, these are in GRIB1 or 2 format,
and
>> > hopefully,
>> > >> > > >> there's
>> > >> > > >> some flag in the header that will enable us to
distinguish
>> > between
>> > >> the
>> > >> > > >> GRIB
>> > >> > > >> records containing 1 and 8 hour averages.
>> > >> > > >>
>> > >> > > >> As for the point observations, I suspect that we'll
need to
>> add
>> > >> logic
>> > >> > to
>> > >> > > >> PB2NC to distinguish between the 1 and 8 hour COPO
>> > concentrations.
>> > >> > > >> Perhaps
>> > >> > > >> we could update PB2NC to use the TPHR values to renamed
COPO
>> to
>> > >> COPO_1
>> > >> > > and
>> > >> > > >> COPO_8?
>> > >> > > >>
>> > >> > > >> Are these COPO point observations present in NDAS or
GDAS
>> > PrepBUFR
>> > >> > > files?
>> > >> > > >>
>> > >> > > >> Thanks,
>> > >> > > >> John
>> > >> > > >>
>> > >> > > >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:40 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov
via
>> RT <
>> > >> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > >> > > >>
>> > >> > > >> >
>> > >> > > >> > Tue Feb 20 13:40:01 2018: Request 84134 was acted
upon.
>> > >> > > >> > Transaction: Ticket created by perry.shafran at noaa.gov
>> > >> > > >> > Queue: met_help
>> > >> > > >> > Subject: verifying ozone
>> > >> > > >> > Owner: Nobody
>> > >> > > >> > Requestors: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
>> > >> > > >> > Status: new
>> > >> > > >> > Ticket <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
>> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > >> >
>> > >> > > >> >
>> > >> > > >> > Hi, everyone,
>> > >> > > >> >
>> > >> > > >> > I am helping the AQM group verify ozone and I need
some
>> > >> assistance
>> > >> > in
>> > >> > > >> using
>> > >> > > >> > PB2NC (and then later point_stat, but let's start
with
>> > PB2NC). I
>> > >> > need
>> > >> > > >> to
>> > >> > > >> > be able to read in two quantities from the prepbufr
file and
>> > then
>> > >> > > >> combine
>> > >> > > >> > that to be able to compare to the two model items.
>> > >> > > >> >
>> > >> > > >> > In the bufr file, the variables at hand are COPO (the
ozone
>> > >> > > >> concentration),
>> > >> > > >> > and also TPHR. TPHR is either -1 or -8 depending on
whether
>> > the
>> > >> > > >> observed
>> > >> > > >> > ozone is a 1-hr or 8-hr average.
>> > >> > > >> >
>> > >> > > >> > In essence, we have two entities here depending on
the
>> value of
>> > >> > TPHR:
>> > >> > > >> the
>> > >> > > >> > 1-hr average ozone and the 8-hr average ozone. But
they
>> have
>> > the
>> > >> > same
>> > >> > > >> > value.
>> > >> > > >> >
>> > >> > > >> > In the model we also have two variables. Both are
called
>> > OZCON,
>> > >> but
>> > >> > > the
>> > >> > > >> > first one in the file is a 1-hr average and the
second one
>> is
>> > the
>> > >> > 8-hr
>> > >> > > >> > average.
>> > >> > > >> >
>> > >> > > >> > The trick here is verifying 1-hr average with 1-hr
average,
>> and
>> > >> 8-hr
>> > >> > > >> > average with 8-hr average. I think there is a
>> multiplication
>> > >> factor
>> > >> > > in
>> > >> > > >> > there somewhere, as the obs are in units of
mole/mole, while
>> > the
>> > >> > model
>> > >> > > >> is
>> > >> > > >> > in parts per billion (ppb).
>> > >> > > >> >
>> > >> > > >> > I don't know if you've spoken with the AQM team on
how
>> exactly
>> > >> to do
>> > >> > > >> this,
>> > >> > > >> > but I was hoping to help them with this. If you can
advise
>> on
>> > >> how
>> > >> > to
>> > >> > > do
>> > >> > > >> > this, that would be great!
>> > >> > > >> >
>> > >> > > >> > Thanks!
>> > >> > > >> >
>> > >> > > >> > Perry
>> > >> > > >> >
>> > >> > > >> >
>> > >> > > >>
>> > >> > > >>
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: verifying ozone
From: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
Time: Tue Mar 06 08:27:38 2018
Hi, John,
I am able to start working on this today. Is this available for
testing
now?
Also I'm not entirely sure what you mean in that the obs and the model
don't match up well in time? In the example I sent you, you have a
set of
observations and all the forecast files that verify at that particular
time. Both the model and observed bufr file have 1-hourly fields
(hourly
fields of 1-hr and hourly fields of 8-hr ozone - kind of hard to
imagine
that, but they are just values). So we will also need a way to match
up
the observed field with the modeled field at the corresponding time.
(For
example, matching the 3-hr forecast from the 12Z model run with the
15Z
observed field.)
I think this is best achieved with a different execution of point_stat
for
each individual hour, because that's how I do gridtobs anyway.
What are your thoughts on the above?
Thanks!
Perry
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:32 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT
<met_help at ucar.edu
> wrote:
> Hi Perry,
>
> Howard Soh updated the logic in the PB2NC to handle the 1 and 8-hour
COPO
> observations in the way we discussed. I wanted to let you know that
I
> tested it this afternoon and got some good results. The sample
fcst/obs
> data you sent doesn't line up well in time, so I just set a very
large
> matching time window in Point-Stat.
>
> Here's the relevant pieces of the Point-Stat config file:
>
> fcst = {
> field = [
> { name = "OZCON"; level = "A01"; },
> { name = "OZCON"; level = "A08"; }
> ];
> }
> obs = {
> message_type = [ "AIRNOW" ];
> convert(x) = x*10^9;
> field = [
> { name = "COPO"; level = "A01"; },
> { name = "COPO"; level = "A08"; }
> ];
> }
>
> And I'm just *guessing* at that conversion factor. The resulting
numbers
> look about right, but its up to you to confirm. Using the sample
data you
> sent me, this results in a mean error value of 12.64 and 15.48 for
the 1
> and 8-hour accums, respectively. But the fcst/obs data are actually
offset
> by 12 hours so these numbers don't mean much, other than
demonstrating
> there isn't a huge order of magnitude difference.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:06 PM, John Halley Gotway
<johnhg at ucar.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > Perry,
> >
> > I think I prefer option 2 as well. I'll ask Howard Soh, one of
the
> > developers here, to add specific logic for the AIRNOW message
type,
> where...
> > - level = absolute value of TPHR
> > - qc flag = QCIND
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:00 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> >>
> >> Hi, John,
> >>
> >> What would be easier in comparing to the model output, do you
think? I
> >> think that having it as some sort of "accumulation variable" (the
2nd
> >> option) would work.
> >>
> >> In the model, though, they are not listed as either 1 or 8 hr
> >> accumulations/averages. They are listed as either, for example
for the
> 24
> >> hr forecast, either "23-24 hr ave fcst" or "16-24 hr ave fcst".
Would
> be
> >> easier if it said "1 hr ave fcst" or "8 hr ave fcst", but again,
that's
> >> not
> >> what we got. So I'm guessing that might make it a little more
> challenging
> >> for the model to script up?
> >>
> >> Perry
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:50 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Perry,
> >> >
> >> > I wanted to check how point observations of precip are stored
in
> >> PrepBUFR
> >> > so I ran PB2NC on an old NDAS file using the -index option.
Here's
> >> what I
> >> > found:
> >> >
> >> > DEBUG 1: TP06: TOTAL PRECIPITATION PAST 6
> >> > HOURS types: ADPSFC
> >> > DEBUG 1: TP24: TOTAL PRECIPITATION PAST 24
> >> > HOURS types: ADPSFC
> >> >
> >> > So basically, the accumulation interval exists in the
observation
> >> variable
> >> > name. Following that paradigm, if the AIRNOW observations were
stored
> >> > using COPO01 and COPO08, then MET would already be able to
handle them
> >> > already. But I suppose we're likely stuck with what we've got.
> >> >
> >> > I can see 2 ways we could handle this for processing AIRNOW
message
> >> > types...
> >> >
> >> > Option 1: Follow the precip example and modify the observation
> variable
> >> > names by appending the TPHR value. Instead of COPO, we'd have
> >> observations
> >> > named COPO01 and COPO08. And if we ever see TPHR = -24, that'd
> produce
> >> a
> >> > COPO24 variable name.
> >> >
> >> > Option 2: We could keep the COPO variable name unchanged, and
instead
> >> set
> >> > the "level" value for these observations to indicate the
accumulation
> >> > interval. If you look at the ascii2nc usage statement, you'll
see the
> >> > following:
> >> > "Level" is the pressure level (hPa) or accumulation interval
> >> (HH[MMSS]).
> >> >
> >> > So we could use the value of TPHR to define the level as an
> >> "accumulation"
> >> > interval.
> >> >
> >> > Either option could be made to work in MET. Does one make more
sense
> to
> >> > you than the other?
> >> >
> >> > While we're doing this, I assume we should also using the QCIND
value
> to
> >> > populate the obs_qty (i.e. quality control) setting?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > John
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:34 PM, John Halley Gotway
<johnhg at ucar.edu>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Perry,
> >> > >
> >> > > Until users dive into the details, we won't know about these
sorts
> of
> >> -1
> >> > > vs -8 issues. But once we identify the requirements, we can
update
> >> the
> >> > > software to handle them.
> >> > >
> >> > > So please keep the feedback coming.
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks,
> >> > > John
> >> > >
> >> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:31 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via
RT <
> >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >>
> >> > >> <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Hi, John,
> >> > >>
> >> > >> OK, thanks! I thought the latest version of MET that we
were using
> >> was
> >> > >> configured for the air quality applications?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Perry
> >> > >>
> >> > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:26 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> > Perry,
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > I just grabbed them and ran the forecast data through the
> >> > >> plot_data_plane
> >> > >> > utility. Looks like specifying the level as an
accumulation type
> >> does
> >> > >> the
> >> > >> > trick:
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_data_plane AWIP3D18.tm00
> OZCON_1hr.ps
> >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A1";'
> >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_data_plane AWIP3D18.tm00
> OZCON_8hr.ps
> >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A8";'
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > The resulting images are attached.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > Next, I ran pb2nc using the -index option to see a
description of
> >> the
> >> > >> > prepda contents:
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/pb2nc prepda.2017081000
<(201)%20708-1000>
> >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> >> > >> > prepda.2017081000.nc /usr/local/met-6.1/share/met/
> >> > >> > config/PB2NCConfig_default
> >> > >> > -index -log pb2nc_index.log
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Header variables:
> >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SID: STATION IDENTIFICATION
> >> > >> > DEBUG 1: XOB: LONGITUDE
> >> > >> > DEBUG 1: YOB: LATITUDE
> >> > >> > DEBUG 1: DHR: OBSERVATION TIME MINUS CYCLE TIME
> >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ELV:
> >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYP: PREPBUFR REPORT TYPE
> >> > >> > DEBUG 1: T29: DATA DUMP REPORT TYPE
> >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ITP:
> >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
> >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Observation variables:
> >> > >> > DEBUG 1: COPO: CONCENTRATION OF
> >> > >> > POLLUTANT types: AIRNOW
> >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYPO: TYPE OF POLLUTANT
> >> > >> > DEBUG 1: CAT: PREPBUFR DATA LEVEL CATEGORY
> >> > >> > DEBUG 1: PROCN: PROCESS NUMBER FOR THIS MPI RUN
(OBTAINED
> >> FROM
> >> > >> > SCRIPT)
> >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SQN: REPORT SEQUENCE NUMBER
> >> > >> > DEBUG 1: QCIND: QUALITY CONTROL INDICATION OF
FOLLOWING
> >> > >> > DATA types: AIRNOW
> >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TSIG: TIME SIGNIFICANCE
> >> > >> > DEBUG 1: RPT: REPORTED OBSERVATION TIME
> >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TPHR: TIME PERIOD OR DISPLACEMENT
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > I see the COPO and TPHR observations listed. We'll need
to
> update
> >> the
> >> > >> > PB2NC code to handle the logic you've described.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > One option for specifying the 1 vs 8 hour difference would
be to
> >> mimic
> >> > >> how
> >> > >> > different precip accumulation intervals are stored for
gauges.
> >> I'll
> >> > >> look
> >> > >> > more into how we might do that.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > Thanks,
> >> > >> > John
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:17 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov
via RT
> <
> >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> >
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > Hi, John,
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > I was just wondering if you have found and received
these
> files.
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > Thanks!
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > Perry
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Perry Shafran - NOAA
> Affiliate
> >> <
> >> > >> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > > I just transferred some model files and an ob file
here on
> >> Theia.
> >> > >> All
> >> > >> > > > these model files verify at the ob time here. Have a
look:
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > > /scratch4/NCEPDEV/meso/save/Perry.Shafran/for_john
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > > Thanks!
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > > Perry
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 6:55 PM, John Halley Gotway
via RT <
> >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > >> Hi Perry,
> >> > >> > > >>
> >> > >> > > >> Can you please point me to a model output file
containing
> the
> >> > OZCON
> >> > >> > > >> fields? Presumably, these are in GRIB1 or 2 format,
and
> >> > hopefully,
> >> > >> > > >> there's
> >> > >> > > >> some flag in the header that will enable us to
distinguish
> >> > between
> >> > >> the
> >> > >> > > >> GRIB
> >> > >> > > >> records containing 1 and 8 hour averages.
> >> > >> > > >>
> >> > >> > > >> As for the point observations, I suspect that we'll
need to
> >> add
> >> > >> logic
> >> > >> > to
> >> > >> > > >> PB2NC to distinguish between the 1 and 8 hour COPO
> >> > concentrations.
> >> > >> > > >> Perhaps
> >> > >> > > >> we could update PB2NC to use the TPHR values to
renamed COPO
> >> to
> >> > >> COPO_1
> >> > >> > > and
> >> > >> > > >> COPO_8?
> >> > >> > > >>
> >> > >> > > >> Are these COPO point observations present in NDAS or
GDAS
> >> > PrepBUFR
> >> > >> > > files?
> >> > >> > > >>
> >> > >> > > >> Thanks,
> >> > >> > > >> John
> >> > >> > > >>
> >> > >> > > >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:40 PM,
perry.shafran at noaa.gov via
> >> RT <
> >> > >> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> > >> > > >>
> >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > >> > > >> > Tue Feb 20 13:40:01 2018: Request 84134 was acted
upon.
> >> > >> > > >> > Transaction: Ticket created by
perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> >> > >> > > >> > Queue: met_help
> >> > >> > > >> > Subject: verifying ozone
> >> > >> > > >> > Owner: Nobody
> >> > >> > > >> > Requestors: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> >> > >> > > >> > Status: new
> >> > >> > > >> > Ticket <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> >> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > >> > > >> > Hi, everyone,
> >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > >> > > >> > I am helping the AQM group verify ozone and I need
some
> >> > >> assistance
> >> > >> > in
> >> > >> > > >> using
> >> > >> > > >> > PB2NC (and then later point_stat, but let's start
with
> >> > PB2NC). I
> >> > >> > need
> >> > >> > > >> to
> >> > >> > > >> > be able to read in two quantities from the prepbufr
file
> and
> >> > then
> >> > >> > > >> combine
> >> > >> > > >> > that to be able to compare to the two model items.
> >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > >> > > >> > In the bufr file, the variables at hand are COPO
(the
> ozone
> >> > >> > > >> concentration),
> >> > >> > > >> > and also TPHR. TPHR is either -1 or -8 depending
on
> whether
> >> > the
> >> > >> > > >> observed
> >> > >> > > >> > ozone is a 1-hr or 8-hr average.
> >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > >> > > >> > In essence, we have two entities here depending on
the
> >> value of
> >> > >> > TPHR:
> >> > >> > > >> the
> >> > >> > > >> > 1-hr average ozone and the 8-hr average ozone. But
they
> >> have
> >> > the
> >> > >> > same
> >> > >> > > >> > value.
> >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > >> > > >> > In the model we also have two variables. Both are
called
> >> > OZCON,
> >> > >> but
> >> > >> > > the
> >> > >> > > >> > first one in the file is a 1-hr average and the
second one
> >> is
> >> > the
> >> > >> > 8-hr
> >> > >> > > >> > average.
> >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > >> > > >> > The trick here is verifying 1-hr average with 1-hr
> average,
> >> and
> >> > >> 8-hr
> >> > >> > > >> > average with 8-hr average. I think there is a
> >> multiplication
> >> > >> factor
> >> > >> > > in
> >> > >> > > >> > there somewhere, as the obs are in units of
mole/mole,
> while
> >> > the
> >> > >> > model
> >> > >> > > >> is
> >> > >> > > >> > in parts per billion (ppb).
> >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > >> > > >> > I don't know if you've spoken with the AQM team on
how
> >> exactly
> >> > >> to do
> >> > >> > > >> this,
> >> > >> > > >> > but I was hoping to help them with this. If you
can
> advise
> >> on
> >> > >> how
> >> > >> > to
> >> > >> > > do
> >> > >> > > >> > this, that would be great!
> >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > >> > > >> > Thanks!
> >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > >> > > >> > Perry
> >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > >> > > >>
> >> > >> > > >>
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: verifying ozone
From: John Halley Gotway
Time: Tue Mar 06 09:25:57 2018
Hi Perry,
We just posted the met-7.0 release yesterday. Julie Prestopnik is
actually
out at NCEP today, and she'll be the one to install it on WCOSS. So
I'll
let her chime in to let us know when she's able to do that.
Thanks,
John
On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:27 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
>
> Hi, John,
>
> I am able to start working on this today. Is this available for
testing
> now?
>
> Also I'm not entirely sure what you mean in that the obs and the
model
> don't match up well in time? In the example I sent you, you have a
set of
> observations and all the forecast files that verify at that
particular
> time. Both the model and observed bufr file have 1-hourly fields
(hourly
> fields of 1-hr and hourly fields of 8-hr ozone - kind of hard to
imagine
> that, but they are just values). So we will also need a way to
match up
> the observed field with the modeled field at the corresponding time.
(For
> example, matching the 3-hr forecast from the 12Z model run with the
15Z
> observed field.)
>
> I think this is best achieved with a different execution of
point_stat for
> each individual hour, because that's how I do gridtobs anyway.
>
> What are your thoughts on the above?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Perry
>
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:32 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu
> > wrote:
>
> > Hi Perry,
> >
> > Howard Soh updated the logic in the PB2NC to handle the 1 and 8-
hour COPO
> > observations in the way we discussed. I wanted to let you know
that I
> > tested it this afternoon and got some good results. The sample
fcst/obs
> > data you sent doesn't line up well in time, so I just set a very
large
> > matching time window in Point-Stat.
> >
> > Here's the relevant pieces of the Point-Stat config file:
> >
> > fcst = {
> > field = [
> > { name = "OZCON"; level = "A01"; },
> > { name = "OZCON"; level = "A08"; }
> > ];
> > }
> > obs = {
> > message_type = [ "AIRNOW" ];
> > convert(x) = x*10^9;
> > field = [
> > { name = "COPO"; level = "A01"; },
> > { name = "COPO"; level = "A08"; }
> > ];
> > }
> >
> > And I'm just *guessing* at that conversion factor. The resulting
numbers
> > look about right, but its up to you to confirm. Using the sample
data
> you
> > sent me, this results in a mean error value of 12.64 and 15.48 for
the 1
> > and 8-hour accums, respectively. But the fcst/obs data are
actually
> offset
> > by 12 hours so these numbers don't mean much, other than
demonstrating
> > there isn't a huge order of magnitude difference.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:06 PM, John Halley Gotway
<johnhg at ucar.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Perry,
> > >
> > > I think I prefer option 2 as well. I'll ask Howard Soh, one of
the
> > > developers here, to add specific logic for the AIRNOW message
type,
> > where...
> > > - level = absolute value of TPHR
> > > - qc flag = QCIND
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:00 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> > >>
> > >> Hi, John,
> > >>
> > >> What would be easier in comparing to the model output, do you
think?
> I
> > >> think that having it as some sort of "accumulation variable"
(the 2nd
> > >> option) would work.
> > >>
> > >> In the model, though, they are not listed as either 1 or 8 hr
> > >> accumulations/averages. They are listed as either, for example
for
> the
> > 24
> > >> hr forecast, either "23-24 hr ave fcst" or "16-24 hr ave fcst".
Would
> > be
> > >> easier if it said "1 hr ave fcst" or "8 hr ave fcst", but
again,
> that's
> > >> not
> > >> what we got. So I'm guessing that might make it a little more
> > challenging
> > >> for the model to script up?
> > >>
> > >> Perry
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:50 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Perry,
> > >> >
> > >> > I wanted to check how point observations of precip are stored
in
> > >> PrepBUFR
> > >> > so I ran PB2NC on an old NDAS file using the -index option.
Here's
> > >> what I
> > >> > found:
> > >> >
> > >> > DEBUG 1: TP06: TOTAL PRECIPITATION PAST 6
> > >> > HOURS types: ADPSFC
> > >> > DEBUG 1: TP24: TOTAL PRECIPITATION PAST 24
> > >> > HOURS types: ADPSFC
> > >> >
> > >> > So basically, the accumulation interval exists in the
observation
> > >> variable
> > >> > name. Following that paradigm, if the AIRNOW observations
were
> stored
> > >> > using COPO01 and COPO08, then MET would already be able to
handle
> them
> > >> > already. But I suppose we're likely stuck with what we've
got.
> > >> >
> > >> > I can see 2 ways we could handle this for processing AIRNOW
message
> > >> > types...
> > >> >
> > >> > Option 1: Follow the precip example and modify the
observation
> > variable
> > >> > names by appending the TPHR value. Instead of COPO, we'd
have
> > >> observations
> > >> > named COPO01 and COPO08. And if we ever see TPHR = -24,
that'd
> > produce
> > >> a
> > >> > COPO24 variable name.
> > >> >
> > >> > Option 2: We could keep the COPO variable name unchanged, and
> instead
> > >> set
> > >> > the "level" value for these observations to indicate the
> accumulation
> > >> > interval. If you look at the ascii2nc usage statement,
you'll see
> the
> > >> > following:
> > >> > "Level" is the pressure level (hPa) or accumulation
interval
> > >> (HH[MMSS]).
> > >> >
> > >> > So we could use the value of TPHR to define the level as an
> > >> "accumulation"
> > >> > interval.
> > >> >
> > >> > Either option could be made to work in MET. Does one make
more
> sense
> > to
> > >> > you than the other?
> > >> >
> > >> > While we're doing this, I assume we should also using the
QCIND
> value
> > to
> > >> > populate the obs_qty (i.e. quality control) setting?
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks,
> > >> > John
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:34 PM, John Halley Gotway <
> johnhg at ucar.edu>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Perry,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Until users dive into the details, we won't know about
these sorts
> > of
> > >> -1
> > >> > > vs -8 issues. But once we identify the requirements, we
can
> update
> > >> the
> > >> > > software to handle them.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > So please keep the feedback coming.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Thanks,
> > >> > > John
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:31 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via
RT <
> > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Hi, John,
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> OK, thanks! I thought the latest version of MET that we
were
> using
> > >> was
> > >> > >> configured for the air quality applications?
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Perry
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:26 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT
<
> > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> > Perry,
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > I just grabbed them and ran the forecast data through
the
> > >> > >> plot_data_plane
> > >> > >> > utility. Looks like specifying the level as an
accumulation
> type
> > >> does
> > >> > >> the
> > >> > >> > trick:
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_data_plane AWIP3D18.tm00
> > OZCON_1hr.ps
> > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A1";'
> > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_data_plane AWIP3D18.tm00
> > OZCON_8hr.ps
> > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A8";'
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > The resulting images are attached.
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > Next, I ran pb2nc using the -index option to see a
description
> of
> > >> the
> > >> > >> > prepda contents:
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/pb2nc prepda.2017081000
> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > >> > >> > prepda.2017081000.nc /usr/local/met-6.1/share/met/
> > >> > >> > config/PB2NCConfig_default
> > >> > >> > -index -log pb2nc_index.log
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Header variables:
> > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SID: STATION IDENTIFICATION
> > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: XOB: LONGITUDE
> > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: YOB: LATITUDE
> > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: DHR: OBSERVATION TIME MINUS CYCLE TIME
> > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ELV:
> > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYP: PREPBUFR REPORT TYPE
> > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: T29: DATA DUMP REPORT TYPE
> > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ITP:
> > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
> > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Observation variables:
> > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: COPO: CONCENTRATION OF
> > >> > >> > POLLUTANT types: AIRNOW
> > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYPO: TYPE OF POLLUTANT
> > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: CAT: PREPBUFR DATA LEVEL CATEGORY
> > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: PROCN: PROCESS NUMBER FOR THIS MPI RUN
(OBTAINED
> > >> FROM
> > >> > >> > SCRIPT)
> > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SQN: REPORT SEQUENCE NUMBER
> > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: QCIND: QUALITY CONTROL INDICATION OF
FOLLOWING
> > >> > >> > DATA types: AIRNOW
> > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TSIG: TIME SIGNIFICANCE
> > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: RPT: REPORTED OBSERVATION TIME
> > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TPHR: TIME PERIOD OR DISPLACEMENT
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > I see the COPO and TPHR observations listed. We'll need
to
> > update
> > >> the
> > >> > >> > PB2NC code to handle the logic you've described.
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > One option for specifying the 1 vs 8 hour difference
would be
> to
> > >> mimic
> > >> > >> how
> > >> > >> > different precip accumulation intervals are stored for
gauges.
> > >> I'll
> > >> > >> look
> > >> > >> > more into how we might do that.
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > Thanks,
> > >> > >> > John
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:17 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov
via
> RT
> > <
> > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > >
> > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> > > Hi, John,
> > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> > > I was just wondering if you have found and received
these
> > files.
> > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> > > Thanks!
> > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> > > Perry
> > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Perry Shafran - NOAA
> > Affiliate
> > >> <
> > >> > >> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > >> > > > I just transferred some model files and an ob file
here on
> > >> Theia.
> > >> > >> All
> > >> > >> > > > these model files verify at the ob time here. Have
a look:
> > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > >> > > > /scratch4/NCEPDEV/meso/save/Perry.Shafran/for_john
> > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
> > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > >> > > > Perry
> > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > >> > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 6:55 PM, John Halley Gotway
via RT
> <
> > >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > >> > > >> Hi Perry,
> > >> > >> > > >>
> > >> > >> > > >> Can you please point me to a model output file
containing
> > the
> > >> > OZCON
> > >> > >> > > >> fields? Presumably, these are in GRIB1 or 2
format, and
> > >> > hopefully,
> > >> > >> > > >> there's
> > >> > >> > > >> some flag in the header that will enable us to
distinguish
> > >> > between
> > >> > >> the
> > >> > >> > > >> GRIB
> > >> > >> > > >> records containing 1 and 8 hour averages.
> > >> > >> > > >>
> > >> > >> > > >> As for the point observations, I suspect that we'll
need
> to
> > >> add
> > >> > >> logic
> > >> > >> > to
> > >> > >> > > >> PB2NC to distinguish between the 1 and 8 hour COPO
> > >> > concentrations.
> > >> > >> > > >> Perhaps
> > >> > >> > > >> we could update PB2NC to use the TPHR values to
renamed
> COPO
> > >> to
> > >> > >> COPO_1
> > >> > >> > > and
> > >> > >> > > >> COPO_8?
> > >> > >> > > >>
> > >> > >> > > >> Are these COPO point observations present in NDAS
or GDAS
> > >> > PrepBUFR
> > >> > >> > > files?
> > >> > >> > > >>
> > >> > >> > > >> Thanks,
> > >> > >> > > >> John
> > >> > >> > > >>
> > >> > >> > > >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:40 PM,
perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> via
> > >> RT <
> > >> > >> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >> > >> > > >>
> > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > >> > > >> > Tue Feb 20 13:40:01 2018: Request 84134 was acted
upon.
> > >> > >> > > >> > Transaction: Ticket created by
perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > >> > >> > > >> > Queue: met_help
> > >> > >> > > >> > Subject: verifying ozone
> > >> > >> > > >> > Owner: Nobody
> > >> > >> > > >> > Requestors: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > >> > >> > > >> > Status: new
> > >> > >> > > >> > Ticket <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > >> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > >> > > >> > Hi, everyone,
> > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > >> > > >> > I am helping the AQM group verify ozone and I
need some
> > >> > >> assistance
> > >> > >> > in
> > >> > >> > > >> using
> > >> > >> > > >> > PB2NC (and then later point_stat, but let's start
with
> > >> > PB2NC). I
> > >> > >> > need
> > >> > >> > > >> to
> > >> > >> > > >> > be able to read in two quantities from the
prepbufr file
> > and
> > >> > then
> > >> > >> > > >> combine
> > >> > >> > > >> > that to be able to compare to the two model
items.
> > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > >> > > >> > In the bufr file, the variables at hand are COPO
(the
> > ozone
> > >> > >> > > >> concentration),
> > >> > >> > > >> > and also TPHR. TPHR is either -1 or -8 depending
on
> > whether
> > >> > the
> > >> > >> > > >> observed
> > >> > >> > > >> > ozone is a 1-hr or 8-hr average.
> > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > >> > > >> > In essence, we have two entities here depending
on the
> > >> value of
> > >> > >> > TPHR:
> > >> > >> > > >> the
> > >> > >> > > >> > 1-hr average ozone and the 8-hr average ozone.
But they
> > >> have
> > >> > the
> > >> > >> > same
> > >> > >> > > >> > value.
> > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > >> > > >> > In the model we also have two variables. Both
are
> called
> > >> > OZCON,
> > >> > >> but
> > >> > >> > > the
> > >> > >> > > >> > first one in the file is a 1-hr average and the
second
> one
> > >> is
> > >> > the
> > >> > >> > 8-hr
> > >> > >> > > >> > average.
> > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > >> > > >> > The trick here is verifying 1-hr average with 1-
hr
> > average,
> > >> and
> > >> > >> 8-hr
> > >> > >> > > >> > average with 8-hr average. I think there is a
> > >> multiplication
> > >> > >> factor
> > >> > >> > > in
> > >> > >> > > >> > there somewhere, as the obs are in units of
mole/mole,
> > while
> > >> > the
> > >> > >> > model
> > >> > >> > > >> is
> > >> > >> > > >> > in parts per billion (ppb).
> > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > >> > > >> > I don't know if you've spoken with the AQM team
on how
> > >> exactly
> > >> > >> to do
> > >> > >> > > >> this,
> > >> > >> > > >> > but I was hoping to help them with this. If you
can
> > advise
> > >> on
> > >> > >> how
> > >> > >> > to
> > >> > >> > > do
> > >> > >> > > >> > this, that would be great!
> > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > >> > > >> > Thanks!
> > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > >> > > >> > Perry
> > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > >> > > >>
> > >> > >> > > >>
> > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: verifying ozone
From: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
Time: Tue Mar 06 09:37:06 2018
OK, thanks! So this is included in the latest MET release. I think
there
will definitely be other questions, if I want to be able to verify
each
hourly forecast of ozone with the observation. The DHR tells us which
hour
that we are looking for to verify.
Perry
On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:25 AM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> Hi Perry,
>
> We just posted the met-7.0 release yesterday. Julie Prestopnik is
actually
> out at NCEP today, and she'll be the one to install it on WCOSS. So
I'll
> let her chime in to let us know when she's able to do that.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:27 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> >
> > Hi, John,
> >
> > I am able to start working on this today. Is this available for
testing
> > now?
> >
> > Also I'm not entirely sure what you mean in that the obs and the
model
> > don't match up well in time? In the example I sent you, you have
a set
> of
> > observations and all the forecast files that verify at that
particular
> > time. Both the model and observed bufr file have 1-hourly fields
(hourly
> > fields of 1-hr and hourly fields of 8-hr ozone - kind of hard to
imagine
> > that, but they are just values). So we will also need a way to
match up
> > the observed field with the modeled field at the corresponding
time.
> (For
> > example, matching the 3-hr forecast from the 12Z model run with
the 15Z
> > observed field.)
> >
> > I think this is best achieved with a different execution of
point_stat
> for
> > each individual hour, because that's how I do gridtobs anyway.
> >
> > What are your thoughts on the above?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Perry
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:32 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Perry,
> > >
> > > Howard Soh updated the logic in the PB2NC to handle the 1 and 8-
hour
> COPO
> > > observations in the way we discussed. I wanted to let you know
that I
> > > tested it this afternoon and got some good results. The sample
> fcst/obs
> > > data you sent doesn't line up well in time, so I just set a very
large
> > > matching time window in Point-Stat.
> > >
> > > Here's the relevant pieces of the Point-Stat config file:
> > >
> > > fcst = {
> > > field = [
> > > { name = "OZCON"; level = "A01"; },
> > > { name = "OZCON"; level = "A08"; }
> > > ];
> > > }
> > > obs = {
> > > message_type = [ "AIRNOW" ];
> > > convert(x) = x*10^9;
> > > field = [
> > > { name = "COPO"; level = "A01"; },
> > > { name = "COPO"; level = "A08"; }
> > > ];
> > > }
> > >
> > > And I'm just *guessing* at that conversion factor. The
resulting
> numbers
> > > look about right, but its up to you to confirm. Using the
sample data
> > you
> > > sent me, this results in a mean error value of 12.64 and 15.48
for the
> 1
> > > and 8-hour accums, respectively. But the fcst/obs data are
actually
> > offset
> > > by 12 hours so these numbers don't mean much, other than
demonstrating
> > > there isn't a huge order of magnitude difference.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > John
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:06 PM, John Halley Gotway
<johnhg at ucar.edu>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Perry,
> > > >
> > > > I think I prefer option 2 as well. I'll ask Howard Soh, one
of the
> > > > developers here, to add specific logic for the AIRNOW message
type,
> > > where...
> > > > - level = absolute value of TPHR
> > > > - qc flag = QCIND
> > > >
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:00 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT
<
> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
>
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi, John,
> > > >>
> > > >> What would be easier in comparing to the model output, do you
think?
> > I
> > > >> think that having it as some sort of "accumulation variable"
(the
> 2nd
> > > >> option) would work.
> > > >>
> > > >> In the model, though, they are not listed as either 1 or 8 hr
> > > >> accumulations/averages. They are listed as either, for
example for
> > the
> > > 24
> > > >> hr forecast, either "23-24 hr ave fcst" or "16-24 hr ave
fcst".
> Would
> > > be
> > > >> easier if it said "1 hr ave fcst" or "8 hr ave fcst", but
again,
> > that's
> > > >> not
> > > >> what we got. So I'm guessing that might make it a little
more
> > > challenging
> > > >> for the model to script up?
> > > >>
> > > >> Perry
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:50 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Perry,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I wanted to check how point observations of precip are
stored in
> > > >> PrepBUFR
> > > >> > so I ran PB2NC on an old NDAS file using the -index option.
> Here's
> > > >> what I
> > > >> > found:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP06: TOTAL PRECIPITATION PAST 6
> > > >> > HOURS types: ADPSFC
> > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP24: TOTAL PRECIPITATION PAST 24
> > > >> > HOURS types: ADPSFC
> > > >> >
> > > >> > So basically, the accumulation interval exists in the
observation
> > > >> variable
> > > >> > name. Following that paradigm, if the AIRNOW observations
were
> > stored
> > > >> > using COPO01 and COPO08, then MET would already be able to
handle
> > them
> > > >> > already. But I suppose we're likely stuck with what we've
got.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I can see 2 ways we could handle this for processing AIRNOW
> message
> > > >> > types...
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Option 1: Follow the precip example and modify the
observation
> > > variable
> > > >> > names by appending the TPHR value. Instead of COPO, we'd
have
> > > >> observations
> > > >> > named COPO01 and COPO08. And if we ever see TPHR = -24,
that'd
> > > produce
> > > >> a
> > > >> > COPO24 variable name.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Option 2: We could keep the COPO variable name unchanged,
and
> > instead
> > > >> set
> > > >> > the "level" value for these observations to indicate the
> > accumulation
> > > >> > interval. If you look at the ascii2nc usage statement,
you'll see
> > the
> > > >> > following:
> > > >> > "Level" is the pressure level (hPa) or accumulation
interval
> > > >> (HH[MMSS]).
> > > >> >
> > > >> > So we could use the value of TPHR to define the level as an
> > > >> "accumulation"
> > > >> > interval.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Either option could be made to work in MET. Does one make
more
> > sense
> > > to
> > > >> > you than the other?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > While we're doing this, I assume we should also using the
QCIND
> > value
> > > to
> > > >> > populate the obs_qty (i.e. quality control) setting?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thanks,
> > > >> > John
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:34 PM, John Halley Gotway <
> > johnhg at ucar.edu>
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Perry,
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Until users dive into the details, we won't know about
these
> sorts
> > > of
> > > >> -1
> > > >> > > vs -8 issues. But once we identify the requirements, we
can
> > update
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > software to handle them.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > So please keep the feedback coming.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Thanks,
> > > >> > > John
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:31 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov
via RT
> <
> > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> >
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> Hi, John,
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> OK, thanks! I thought the latest version of MET that we
were
> > using
> > > >> was
> > > >> > >> configured for the air quality applications?
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> Perry
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:26 PM, John Halley Gotway via
RT <
> > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> > Perry,
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > I just grabbed them and ran the forecast data through
the
> > > >> > >> plot_data_plane
> > > >> > >> > utility. Looks like specifying the level as an
accumulation
> > type
> > > >> does
> > > >> > >> the
> > > >> > >> > trick:
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_data_plane AWIP3D18.tm00
> > > OZCON_1hr.ps
> > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A1";'
> > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_data_plane AWIP3D18.tm00
> > > OZCON_8hr.ps
> > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A8";'
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > The resulting images are attached.
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > Next, I ran pb2nc using the -index option to see a
> description
> > of
> > > >> the
> > > >> > >> > prepda contents:
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/pb2nc prepda.2017081000
> > <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > >> > >> > prepda.2017081000.nc /usr/local/met-6.1/share/met/
> > > >> > >> > config/PB2NCConfig_default
> > > >> > >> > -index -log pb2nc_index.log
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Header variables:
> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SID: STATION IDENTIFICATION
> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: XOB: LONGITUDE
> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: YOB: LATITUDE
> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: DHR: OBSERVATION TIME MINUS CYCLE
TIME
> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ELV:
> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYP: PREPBUFR REPORT TYPE
> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: T29: DATA DUMP REPORT TYPE
> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ITP:
> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Observation variables:
> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: COPO: CONCENTRATION OF
> > > >> > >> > POLLUTANT types: AIRNOW
> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYPO: TYPE OF POLLUTANT
> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: CAT: PREPBUFR DATA LEVEL CATEGORY
> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: PROCN: PROCESS NUMBER FOR THIS MPI RUN
> (OBTAINED
> > > >> FROM
> > > >> > >> > SCRIPT)
> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SQN: REPORT SEQUENCE NUMBER
> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: QCIND: QUALITY CONTROL INDICATION OF
FOLLOWING
> > > >> > >> > DATA types: AIRNOW
> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TSIG: TIME SIGNIFICANCE
> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: RPT: REPORTED OBSERVATION TIME
> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TPHR: TIME PERIOD OR DISPLACEMENT
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > I see the COPO and TPHR observations listed. We'll
need to
> > > update
> > > >> the
> > > >> > >> > PB2NC code to handle the logic you've described.
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > One option for specifying the 1 vs 8 hour difference
would be
> > to
> > > >> mimic
> > > >> > >> how
> > > >> > >> > different precip accumulation intervals are stored for
> gauges.
> > > >> I'll
> > > >> > >> look
> > > >> > >> > more into how we might do that.
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > Thanks,
> > > >> > >> > John
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:17 PM,
perry.shafran at noaa.gov via
> > RT
> > > <
> > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > >
> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > > Hi, John,
> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > > I was just wondering if you have found and received
these
> > > files.
> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > > Thanks!
> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > > Perry
> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Perry Shafran -
NOAA
> > > Affiliate
> > > >> <
> > > >> > >> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > I just transferred some model files and an ob file
here
> on
> > > >> Theia.
> > > >> > >> All
> > > >> > >> > > > these model files verify at the ob time here.
Have a
> look:
> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > /scratch4/NCEPDEV/meso/save/Perry.Shafran/for_john
> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > Perry
> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 6:55 PM, John Halley
Gotway via
> RT
> > <
> > > >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >> > > >> Hi Perry,
> > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > >> > >> > > >> Can you please point me to a model output file
> containing
> > > the
> > > >> > OZCON
> > > >> > >> > > >> fields? Presumably, these are in GRIB1 or 2
format, and
> > > >> > hopefully,
> > > >> > >> > > >> there's
> > > >> > >> > > >> some flag in the header that will enable us to
> distinguish
> > > >> > between
> > > >> > >> the
> > > >> > >> > > >> GRIB
> > > >> > >> > > >> records containing 1 and 8 hour averages.
> > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > >> > >> > > >> As for the point observations, I suspect that
we'll need
> > to
> > > >> add
> > > >> > >> logic
> > > >> > >> > to
> > > >> > >> > > >> PB2NC to distinguish between the 1 and 8 hour
COPO
> > > >> > concentrations.
> > > >> > >> > > >> Perhaps
> > > >> > >> > > >> we could update PB2NC to use the TPHR values to
renamed
> > COPO
> > > >> to
> > > >> > >> COPO_1
> > > >> > >> > > and
> > > >> > >> > > >> COPO_8?
> > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > >> > >> > > >> Are these COPO point observations present in NDAS
or
> GDAS
> > > >> > PrepBUFR
> > > >> > >> > > files?
> > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > >> > >> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> > >> > > >> John
> > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > >> > >> > > >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:40 PM,
perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > via
> > > >> RT <
> > > >> > >> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > >> > Tue Feb 20 13:40:01 2018: Request 84134 was
acted
> upon.
> > > >> > >> > > >> > Transaction: Ticket created by
perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > >> > >> > > >> > Queue: met_help
> > > >> > >> > > >> > Subject: verifying ozone
> > > >> > >> > > >> > Owner: Nobody
> > > >> > >> > > >> > Requestors: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > >> > >> > > >> > Status: new
> > > >> > >> > > >> > Ticket <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > >> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > >> > Hi, everyone,
> > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > >> > I am helping the AQM group verify ozone and I
need
> some
> > > >> > >> assistance
> > > >> > >> > in
> > > >> > >> > > >> using
> > > >> > >> > > >> > PB2NC (and then later point_stat, but let's
start with
> > > >> > PB2NC). I
> > > >> > >> > need
> > > >> > >> > > >> to
> > > >> > >> > > >> > be able to read in two quantities from the
prepbufr
> file
> > > and
> > > >> > then
> > > >> > >> > > >> combine
> > > >> > >> > > >> > that to be able to compare to the two model
items.
> > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > >> > In the bufr file, the variables at hand are
COPO (the
> > > ozone
> > > >> > >> > > >> concentration),
> > > >> > >> > > >> > and also TPHR. TPHR is either -1 or -8
depending on
> > > whether
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > >> > > >> observed
> > > >> > >> > > >> > ozone is a 1-hr or 8-hr average.
> > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > >> > In essence, we have two entities here depending
on the
> > > >> value of
> > > >> > >> > TPHR:
> > > >> > >> > > >> the
> > > >> > >> > > >> > 1-hr average ozone and the 8-hr average ozone.
But
> they
> > > >> have
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > >> > same
> > > >> > >> > > >> > value.
> > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > >> > In the model we also have two variables. Both
are
> > called
> > > >> > OZCON,
> > > >> > >> but
> > > >> > >> > > the
> > > >> > >> > > >> > first one in the file is a 1-hr average and the
second
> > one
> > > >> is
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > >> > 8-hr
> > > >> > >> > > >> > average.
> > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > >> > The trick here is verifying 1-hr average with
1-hr
> > > average,
> > > >> and
> > > >> > >> 8-hr
> > > >> > >> > > >> > average with 8-hr average. I think there is a
> > > >> multiplication
> > > >> > >> factor
> > > >> > >> > > in
> > > >> > >> > > >> > there somewhere, as the obs are in units of
mole/mole,
> > > while
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > >> > model
> > > >> > >> > > >> is
> > > >> > >> > > >> > in parts per billion (ppb).
> > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > >> > I don't know if you've spoken with the AQM team
on how
> > > >> exactly
> > > >> > >> to do
> > > >> > >> > > >> this,
> > > >> > >> > > >> > but I was hoping to help them with this. If
you can
> > > advise
> > > >> on
> > > >> > >> how
> > > >> > >> > to
> > > >> > >> > > do
> > > >> > >> > > >> > this, that would be great!
> > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > >> > Thanks!
> > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > >> > Perry
> > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: verifying ozone
From: Julie Prestopnik
Time: Tue Mar 06 09:55:17 2018
Hi Perry. I was able to install it on tide last night.
module use /global/noscrub/Julie.Prestopnik/modulefiles
module load met/7.0
Please let me know if you encounter any problems. It was late when I
installed it... :)
Julie
On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:25 AM, John Halley Gotway via RT
<met_help at ucar.edu
> wrote:
>
> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
>
> Hi Perry,
>
> We just posted the met-7.0 release yesterday. Julie Prestopnik is
actually
> out at NCEP today, and she'll be the one to install it on WCOSS. So
I'll
> let her chime in to let us know when she's able to do that.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:27 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> >
> > Hi, John,
> >
> > I am able to start working on this today. Is this available for
testing
> > now?
> >
> > Also I'm not entirely sure what you mean in that the obs and the
model
> > don't match up well in time? In the example I sent you, you have
a set
> of
> > observations and all the forecast files that verify at that
particular
> > time. Both the model and observed bufr file have 1-hourly fields
(hourly
> > fields of 1-hr and hourly fields of 8-hr ozone - kind of hard to
imagine
> > that, but they are just values). So we will also need a way to
match up
> > the observed field with the modeled field at the corresponding
time.
> (For
> > example, matching the 3-hr forecast from the 12Z model run with
the 15Z
> > observed field.)
> >
> > I think this is best achieved with a different execution of
point_stat
> for
> > each individual hour, because that's how I do gridtobs anyway.
> >
> > What are your thoughts on the above?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Perry
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:32 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Perry,
> > >
> > > Howard Soh updated the logic in the PB2NC to handle the 1 and 8-
hour
> COPO
> > > observations in the way we discussed. I wanted to let you know
that I
> > > tested it this afternoon and got some good results. The sample
> fcst/obs
> > > data you sent doesn't line up well in time, so I just set a very
large
> > > matching time window in Point-Stat.
> > >
> > > Here's the relevant pieces of the Point-Stat config file:
> > >
> > > fcst = {
> > > field = [
> > > { name = "OZCON"; level = "A01"; },
> > > { name = "OZCON"; level = "A08"; }
> > > ];
> > > }
> > > obs = {
> > > message_type = [ "AIRNOW" ];
> > > convert(x) = x*10^9;
> > > field = [
> > > { name = "COPO"; level = "A01"; },
> > > { name = "COPO"; level = "A08"; }
> > > ];
> > > }
> > >
> > > And I'm just *guessing* at that conversion factor. The
resulting
> numbers
> > > look about right, but its up to you to confirm. Using the
sample data
> > you
> > > sent me, this results in a mean error value of 12.64 and 15.48
for the
> 1
> > > and 8-hour accums, respectively. But the fcst/obs data are
actually
> > offset
> > > by 12 hours so these numbers don't mean much, other than
demonstrating
> > > there isn't a huge order of magnitude difference.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > John
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:06 PM, John Halley Gotway
<johnhg at ucar.edu>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Perry,
> > > >
> > > > I think I prefer option 2 as well. I'll ask Howard Soh, one
of the
> > > > developers here, to add specific logic for the AIRNOW message
type,
> > > where...
> > > > - level = absolute value of TPHR
> > > > - qc flag = QCIND
> > > >
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:00 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT
<
> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
>
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi, John,
> > > >>
> > > >> What would be easier in comparing to the model output, do you
think?
> > I
> > > >> think that having it as some sort of "accumulation variable"
(the
> 2nd
> > > >> option) would work.
> > > >>
> > > >> In the model, though, they are not listed as either 1 or 8 hr
> > > >> accumulations/averages. They are listed as either, for
example for
> > the
> > > 24
> > > >> hr forecast, either "23-24 hr ave fcst" or "16-24 hr ave
fcst".
> Would
> > > be
> > > >> easier if it said "1 hr ave fcst" or "8 hr ave fcst", but
again,
> > that's
> > > >> not
> > > >> what we got. So I'm guessing that might make it a little
more
> > > challenging
> > > >> for the model to script up?
> > > >>
> > > >> Perry
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:50 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Perry,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I wanted to check how point observations of precip are
stored in
> > > >> PrepBUFR
> > > >> > so I ran PB2NC on an old NDAS file using the -index option.
> Here's
> > > >> what I
> > > >> > found:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP06: TOTAL PRECIPITATION PAST 6
> > > >> > HOURS types: ADPSFC
> > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP24: TOTAL PRECIPITATION PAST 24
> > > >> > HOURS types: ADPSFC
> > > >> >
> > > >> > So basically, the accumulation interval exists in the
observation
> > > >> variable
> > > >> > name. Following that paradigm, if the AIRNOW observations
were
> > stored
> > > >> > using COPO01 and COPO08, then MET would already be able to
handle
> > them
> > > >> > already. But I suppose we're likely stuck with what we've
got.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I can see 2 ways we could handle this for processing AIRNOW
> message
> > > >> > types...
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Option 1: Follow the precip example and modify the
observation
> > > variable
> > > >> > names by appending the TPHR value. Instead of COPO, we'd
have
> > > >> observations
> > > >> > named COPO01 and COPO08. And if we ever see TPHR = -24,
that'd
> > > produce
> > > >> a
> > > >> > COPO24 variable name.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Option 2: We could keep the COPO variable name unchanged,
and
> > instead
> > > >> set
> > > >> > the "level" value for these observations to indicate the
> > accumulation
> > > >> > interval. If you look at the ascii2nc usage statement,
you'll see
> > the
> > > >> > following:
> > > >> > "Level" is the pressure level (hPa) or accumulation
interval
> > > >> (HH[MMSS]).
> > > >> >
> > > >> > So we could use the value of TPHR to define the level as an
> > > >> "accumulation"
> > > >> > interval.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Either option could be made to work in MET. Does one make
more
> > sense
> > > to
> > > >> > you than the other?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > While we're doing this, I assume we should also using the
QCIND
> > value
> > > to
> > > >> > populate the obs_qty (i.e. quality control) setting?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thanks,
> > > >> > John
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:34 PM, John Halley Gotway <
> > johnhg at ucar.edu>
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Perry,
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Until users dive into the details, we won't know about
these
> sorts
> > > of
> > > >> -1
> > > >> > > vs -8 issues. But once we identify the requirements, we
can
> > update
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > software to handle them.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > So please keep the feedback coming.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Thanks,
> > > >> > > John
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:31 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov
via RT
> <
> > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> >
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> Hi, John,
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> OK, thanks! I thought the latest version of MET that we
were
> > using
> > > >> was
> > > >> > >> configured for the air quality applications?
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> Perry
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:26 PM, John Halley Gotway via
RT <
> > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> > Perry,
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > I just grabbed them and ran the forecast data through
the
> > > >> > >> plot_data_plane
> > > >> > >> > utility. Looks like specifying the level as an
accumulation
> > type
> > > >> does
> > > >> > >> the
> > > >> > >> > trick:
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_data_plane AWIP3D18.tm00
> > > OZCON_1hr.ps
> > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A1";'
> > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_data_plane AWIP3D18.tm00
> > > OZCON_8hr.ps
> > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A8";'
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > The resulting images are attached.
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > Next, I ran pb2nc using the -index option to see a
> description
> > of
> > > >> the
> > > >> > >> > prepda contents:
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/pb2nc prepda.2017081000
> > <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > >> > >> > prepda.2017081000.nc /usr/local/met-6.1/share/met/
> > > >> > >> > config/PB2NCConfig_default
> > > >> > >> > -index -log pb2nc_index.log
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Header variables:
> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SID: STATION IDENTIFICATION
> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: XOB: LONGITUDE
> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: YOB: LATITUDE
> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: DHR: OBSERVATION TIME MINUS CYCLE
TIME
> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ELV:
> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYP: PREPBUFR REPORT TYPE
> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: T29: DATA DUMP REPORT TYPE
> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ITP:
> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Observation variables:
> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: COPO: CONCENTRATION OF
> > > >> > >> > POLLUTANT types: AIRNOW
> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYPO: TYPE OF POLLUTANT
> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: CAT: PREPBUFR DATA LEVEL CATEGORY
> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: PROCN: PROCESS NUMBER FOR THIS MPI RUN
> (OBTAINED
> > > >> FROM
> > > >> > >> > SCRIPT)
> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SQN: REPORT SEQUENCE NUMBER
> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: QCIND: QUALITY CONTROL INDICATION OF
FOLLOWING
> > > >> > >> > DATA types: AIRNOW
> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TSIG: TIME SIGNIFICANCE
> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: RPT: REPORTED OBSERVATION TIME
> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TPHR: TIME PERIOD OR DISPLACEMENT
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > I see the COPO and TPHR observations listed. We'll
need to
> > > update
> > > >> the
> > > >> > >> > PB2NC code to handle the logic you've described.
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > One option for specifying the 1 vs 8 hour difference
would be
> > to
> > > >> mimic
> > > >> > >> how
> > > >> > >> > different precip accumulation intervals are stored for
> gauges.
> > > >> I'll
> > > >> > >> look
> > > >> > >> > more into how we might do that.
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > Thanks,
> > > >> > >> > John
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:17 PM,
perry.shafran at noaa.gov via
> > RT
> > > <
> > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > >
> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > > Hi, John,
> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > > I was just wondering if you have found and received
these
> > > files.
> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > > Thanks!
> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > > Perry
> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Perry Shafran -
NOAA
> > > Affiliate
> > > >> <
> > > >> > >> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > I just transferred some model files and an ob file
here
> on
> > > >> Theia.
> > > >> > >> All
> > > >> > >> > > > these model files verify at the ob time here.
Have a
> look:
> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > /scratch4/NCEPDEV/meso/save/Perry.Shafran/for_john
> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > Perry
> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 6:55 PM, John Halley
Gotway via
> RT
> > <
> > > >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >> > > >> Hi Perry,
> > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > >> > >> > > >> Can you please point me to a model output file
> containing
> > > the
> > > >> > OZCON
> > > >> > >> > > >> fields? Presumably, these are in GRIB1 or 2
format, and
> > > >> > hopefully,
> > > >> > >> > > >> there's
> > > >> > >> > > >> some flag in the header that will enable us to
> distinguish
> > > >> > between
> > > >> > >> the
> > > >> > >> > > >> GRIB
> > > >> > >> > > >> records containing 1 and 8 hour averages.
> > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > >> > >> > > >> As for the point observations, I suspect that
we'll need
> > to
> > > >> add
> > > >> > >> logic
> > > >> > >> > to
> > > >> > >> > > >> PB2NC to distinguish between the 1 and 8 hour
COPO
> > > >> > concentrations.
> > > >> > >> > > >> Perhaps
> > > >> > >> > > >> we could update PB2NC to use the TPHR values to
renamed
> > COPO
> > > >> to
> > > >> > >> COPO_1
> > > >> > >> > > and
> > > >> > >> > > >> COPO_8?
> > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > >> > >> > > >> Are these COPO point observations present in NDAS
or
> GDAS
> > > >> > PrepBUFR
> > > >> > >> > > files?
> > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > >> > >> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> > >> > > >> John
> > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > >> > >> > > >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:40 PM,
perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > via
> > > >> RT <
> > > >> > >> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > >> > Tue Feb 20 13:40:01 2018: Request 84134 was
acted
> upon.
> > > >> > >> > > >> > Transaction: Ticket created by
perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > >> > >> > > >> > Queue: met_help
> > > >> > >> > > >> > Subject: verifying ozone
> > > >> > >> > > >> > Owner: Nobody
> > > >> > >> > > >> > Requestors: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > >> > >> > > >> > Status: new
> > > >> > >> > > >> > Ticket <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > >> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > >> > Hi, everyone,
> > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > >> > I am helping the AQM group verify ozone and I
need
> some
> > > >> > >> assistance
> > > >> > >> > in
> > > >> > >> > > >> using
> > > >> > >> > > >> > PB2NC (and then later point_stat, but let's
start with
> > > >> > PB2NC). I
> > > >> > >> > need
> > > >> > >> > > >> to
> > > >> > >> > > >> > be able to read in two quantities from the
prepbufr
> file
> > > and
> > > >> > then
> > > >> > >> > > >> combine
> > > >> > >> > > >> > that to be able to compare to the two model
items.
> > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > >> > In the bufr file, the variables at hand are
COPO (the
> > > ozone
> > > >> > >> > > >> concentration),
> > > >> > >> > > >> > and also TPHR. TPHR is either -1 or -8
depending on
> > > whether
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > >> > > >> observed
> > > >> > >> > > >> > ozone is a 1-hr or 8-hr average.
> > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > >> > In essence, we have two entities here depending
on the
> > > >> value of
> > > >> > >> > TPHR:
> > > >> > >> > > >> the
> > > >> > >> > > >> > 1-hr average ozone and the 8-hr average ozone.
But
> they
> > > >> have
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > >> > same
> > > >> > >> > > >> > value.
> > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > >> > In the model we also have two variables. Both
are
> > called
> > > >> > OZCON,
> > > >> > >> but
> > > >> > >> > > the
> > > >> > >> > > >> > first one in the file is a 1-hr average and the
second
> > one
> > > >> is
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > >> > 8-hr
> > > >> > >> > > >> > average.
> > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > >> > The trick here is verifying 1-hr average with
1-hr
> > > average,
> > > >> and
> > > >> > >> 8-hr
> > > >> > >> > > >> > average with 8-hr average. I think there is a
> > > >> multiplication
> > > >> > >> factor
> > > >> > >> > > in
> > > >> > >> > > >> > there somewhere, as the obs are in units of
mole/mole,
> > > while
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > >> > model
> > > >> > >> > > >> is
> > > >> > >> > > >> > in parts per billion (ppb).
> > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > >> > I don't know if you've spoken with the AQM team
on how
> > > >> exactly
> > > >> > >> to do
> > > >> > >> > > >> this,
> > > >> > >> > > >> > but I was hoping to help them with this. If
you can
> > > advise
> > > >> on
> > > >> > >> how
> > > >> > >> > to
> > > >> > >> > > do
> > > >> > >> > > >> > this, that would be great!
> > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > >> > Thanks!
> > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > >> > Perry
> > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: verifying ozone
From: John Halley Gotway
Time: Tue Mar 06 09:59:36 2018
Perry,
Yes, I see that all the AWIP* GRIB2 files you sent me are valid at
2017081000.
However, the point observations in the prepda.2017081000 are valid at
20170809_120000. Or at least that's what the output of PB2NC tells
me!
The timestamps of the data contained in prepda.2017081000 is 12-hours
earlier than the timestamp of that file indicates. Here's a log
message
from PB2NC listing out the "center time" for that file:
DEBUG 1: Processing Bufr File: prepda.2017081000
DEBUG 2: Bufr Time Center: 20170809_120000
Perhaps there's a problem in the naming convention for that "prepda"
file... or perhaps there's a good reason for the 12-hour offset... or
perhaps there's some problem in the MET code and we're not reading
data
from that file correctly?
Thanks,
John
On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:37 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
>
> OK, thanks! So this is included in the latest MET release. I think
there
> will definitely be other questions, if I want to be able to verify
each
> hourly forecast of ozone with the observation. The DHR tells us
which hour
> that we are looking for to verify.
>
> Perry
>
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:25 AM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> > Hi Perry,
> >
> > We just posted the met-7.0 release yesterday. Julie Prestopnik is
> actually
> > out at NCEP today, and she'll be the one to install it on WCOSS.
So I'll
> > let her chime in to let us know when she's able to do that.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > John
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:27 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> > >
> > > Hi, John,
> > >
> > > I am able to start working on this today. Is this available for
> testing
> > > now?
> > >
> > > Also I'm not entirely sure what you mean in that the obs and the
model
> > > don't match up well in time? In the example I sent you, you
have a set
> > of
> > > observations and all the forecast files that verify at that
particular
> > > time. Both the model and observed bufr file have 1-hourly
fields
> (hourly
> > > fields of 1-hr and hourly fields of 8-hr ozone - kind of hard to
> imagine
> > > that, but they are just values). So we will also need a way to
match
> up
> > > the observed field with the modeled field at the corresponding
time.
> > (For
> > > example, matching the 3-hr forecast from the 12Z model run with
the 15Z
> > > observed field.)
> > >
> > > I think this is best achieved with a different execution of
point_stat
> > for
> > > each individual hour, because that's how I do gridtobs anyway.
> > >
> > > What are your thoughts on the above?
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > Perry
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:32 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> > > met_help at ucar.edu
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Perry,
> > > >
> > > > Howard Soh updated the logic in the PB2NC to handle the 1 and
8-hour
> > COPO
> > > > observations in the way we discussed. I wanted to let you
know that
> I
> > > > tested it this afternoon and got some good results. The
sample
> > fcst/obs
> > > > data you sent doesn't line up well in time, so I just set a
very
> large
> > > > matching time window in Point-Stat.
> > > >
> > > > Here's the relevant pieces of the Point-Stat config file:
> > > >
> > > > fcst = {
> > > > field = [
> > > > { name = "OZCON"; level = "A01"; },
> > > > { name = "OZCON"; level = "A08"; }
> > > > ];
> > > > }
> > > > obs = {
> > > > message_type = [ "AIRNOW" ];
> > > > convert(x) = x*10^9;
> > > > field = [
> > > > { name = "COPO"; level = "A01"; },
> > > > { name = "COPO"; level = "A08"; }
> > > > ];
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > And I'm just *guessing* at that conversion factor. The
resulting
> > numbers
> > > > look about right, but its up to you to confirm. Using the
sample
> data
> > > you
> > > > sent me, this results in a mean error value of 12.64 and 15.48
for
> the
> > 1
> > > > and 8-hour accums, respectively. But the fcst/obs data are
actually
> > > offset
> > > > by 12 hours so these numbers don't mean much, other than
> demonstrating
> > > > there isn't a huge order of magnitude difference.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:06 PM, John Halley Gotway
<johnhg at ucar.edu
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Perry,
> > > > >
> > > > > I think I prefer option 2 as well. I'll ask Howard Soh, one
of the
> > > > > developers here, to add specific logic for the AIRNOW
message type,
> > > > where...
> > > > > - level = absolute value of TPHR
> > > > > - qc flag = QCIND
> > > > >
> > > > > John
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:00 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via
RT <
> > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Hi, John,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> What would be easier in comparing to the model output, do
you
> think?
> > > I
> > > > >> think that having it as some sort of "accumulation
variable" (the
> > 2nd
> > > > >> option) would work.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> In the model, though, they are not listed as either 1 or 8
hr
> > > > >> accumulations/averages. They are listed as either, for
example
> for
> > > the
> > > > 24
> > > > >> hr forecast, either "23-24 hr ave fcst" or "16-24 hr ave
fcst".
> > Would
> > > > be
> > > > >> easier if it said "1 hr ave fcst" or "8 hr ave fcst", but
again,
> > > that's
> > > > >> not
> > > > >> what we got. So I'm guessing that might make it a little
more
> > > > challenging
> > > > >> for the model to script up?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Perry
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:50 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT
<
> > > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Perry,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I wanted to check how point observations of precip are
stored in
> > > > >> PrepBUFR
> > > > >> > so I ran PB2NC on an old NDAS file using the -index
option.
> > Here's
> > > > >> what I
> > > > >> > found:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP06: TOTAL PRECIPITATION PAST 6
> > > > >> > HOURS types: ADPSFC
> > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP24: TOTAL PRECIPITATION PAST 24
> > > > >> > HOURS types: ADPSFC
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > So basically, the accumulation interval exists in the
> observation
> > > > >> variable
> > > > >> > name. Following that paradigm, if the AIRNOW
observations were
> > > stored
> > > > >> > using COPO01 and COPO08, then MET would already be able
to
> handle
> > > them
> > > > >> > already. But I suppose we're likely stuck with what
we've got.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I can see 2 ways we could handle this for processing
AIRNOW
> > message
> > > > >> > types...
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Option 1: Follow the precip example and modify the
observation
> > > > variable
> > > > >> > names by appending the TPHR value. Instead of COPO, we'd
have
> > > > >> observations
> > > > >> > named COPO01 and COPO08. And if we ever see TPHR = -24,
that'd
> > > > produce
> > > > >> a
> > > > >> > COPO24 variable name.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Option 2: We could keep the COPO variable name unchanged,
and
> > > instead
> > > > >> set
> > > > >> > the "level" value for these observations to indicate the
> > > accumulation
> > > > >> > interval. If you look at the ascii2nc usage statement,
you'll
> see
> > > the
> > > > >> > following:
> > > > >> > "Level" is the pressure level (hPa) or accumulation
interval
> > > > >> (HH[MMSS]).
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > So we could use the value of TPHR to define the level as
an
> > > > >> "accumulation"
> > > > >> > interval.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Either option could be made to work in MET. Does one
make more
> > > sense
> > > > to
> > > > >> > you than the other?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > While we're doing this, I assume we should also using the
QCIND
> > > value
> > > > to
> > > > >> > populate the obs_qty (i.e. quality control) setting?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > >> > John
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:34 PM, John Halley Gotway <
> > > johnhg at ucar.edu>
> > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > Perry,
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Until users dive into the details, we won't know about
these
> > sorts
> > > > of
> > > > >> -1
> > > > >> > > vs -8 issues. But once we identify the requirements,
we can
> > > update
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > software to handle them.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > So please keep the feedback coming.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Thanks,
> > > > >> > > John
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:31 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov
via
> RT
> > <
> > > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > >
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> Hi, John,
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> OK, thanks! I thought the latest version of MET that
we were
> > > using
> > > > >> was
> > > > >> > >> configured for the air quality applications?
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> Perry
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:26 PM, John Halley Gotway
via RT <
> > > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> > Perry,
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > I just grabbed them and ran the forecast data
through the
> > > > >> > >> plot_data_plane
> > > > >> > >> > utility. Looks like specifying the level as an
> accumulation
> > > type
> > > > >> does
> > > > >> > >> the
> > > > >> > >> > trick:
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_data_plane AWIP3D18.tm00
> > > > OZCON_1hr.ps
> > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A1";'
> > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_data_plane AWIP3D18.tm00
> > > > OZCON_8hr.ps
> > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A8";'
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > The resulting images are attached.
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > Next, I ran pb2nc using the -index option to see a
> > description
> > > of
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > >> > prepda contents:
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/pb2nc prepda.2017081000
> > > <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > >> > >> > prepda.2017081000.nc /usr/local/met-6.1/share/met/
> > > > >> > >> > config/PB2NCConfig_default
> > > > >> > >> > -index -log pb2nc_index.log
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Header variables:
> > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SID: STATION IDENTIFICATION
> > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: XOB: LONGITUDE
> > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: YOB: LATITUDE
> > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: DHR: OBSERVATION TIME MINUS CYCLE
TIME
> > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ELV:
> > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYP: PREPBUFR REPORT TYPE
> > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: T29: DATA DUMP REPORT TYPE
> > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ITP:
> > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
> > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Observation variables:
> > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: COPO: CONCENTRATION OF
> > > > >> > >> > POLLUTANT types:
AIRNOW
> > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYPO: TYPE OF POLLUTANT
> > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: CAT: PREPBUFR DATA LEVEL CATEGORY
> > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: PROCN: PROCESS NUMBER FOR THIS MPI
RUN
> > (OBTAINED
> > > > >> FROM
> > > > >> > >> > SCRIPT)
> > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SQN: REPORT SEQUENCE NUMBER
> > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: QCIND: QUALITY CONTROL INDICATION OF
> FOLLOWING
> > > > >> > >> > DATA types: AIRNOW
> > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TSIG: TIME SIGNIFICANCE
> > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: RPT: REPORTED OBSERVATION TIME
> > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TPHR: TIME PERIOD OR DISPLACEMENT
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > I see the COPO and TPHR observations listed. We'll
need to
> > > > update
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > >> > PB2NC code to handle the logic you've described.
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > One option for specifying the 1 vs 8 hour difference
would
> be
> > > to
> > > > >> mimic
> > > > >> > >> how
> > > > >> > >> > different precip accumulation intervals are stored
for
> > gauges.
> > > > >> I'll
> > > > >> > >> look
> > > > >> > >> > more into how we might do that.
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > Thanks,
> > > > >> > >> > John
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:17 PM,
perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> via
> > > RT
> > > > <
> > > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > >
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > Hi, John,
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > I was just wondering if you have found and
received these
> > > > files.
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > Thanks!
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > Perry
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Perry Shafran -
NOAA
> > > > Affiliate
> > > > >> <
> > > > >> > >> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > I just transferred some model files and an ob
file here
> > on
> > > > >> Theia.
> > > > >> > >> All
> > > > >> > >> > > > these model files verify at the ob time here.
Have a
> > look:
> > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > >
/scratch4/NCEPDEV/meso/save/Perry.Shafran/for_john
> > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
> > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > Perry
> > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 6:55 PM, John Halley
Gotway via
> > RT
> > > <
> > > > >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > >> Hi Perry,
> > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > >> Can you please point me to a model output file
> > containing
> > > > the
> > > > >> > OZCON
> > > > >> > >> > > >> fields? Presumably, these are in GRIB1 or 2
format,
> and
> > > > >> > hopefully,
> > > > >> > >> > > >> there's
> > > > >> > >> > > >> some flag in the header that will enable us to
> > distinguish
> > > > >> > between
> > > > >> > >> the
> > > > >> > >> > > >> GRIB
> > > > >> > >> > > >> records containing 1 and 8 hour averages.
> > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > >> As for the point observations, I suspect that
we'll
> need
> > > to
> > > > >> add
> > > > >> > >> logic
> > > > >> > >> > to
> > > > >> > >> > > >> PB2NC to distinguish between the 1 and 8 hour
COPO
> > > > >> > concentrations.
> > > > >> > >> > > >> Perhaps
> > > > >> > >> > > >> we could update PB2NC to use the TPHR values to
> renamed
> > > COPO
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> > >> COPO_1
> > > > >> > >> > > and
> > > > >> > >> > > >> COPO_8?
> > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > >> Are these COPO point observations present in
NDAS or
> > GDAS
> > > > >> > PrepBUFR
> > > > >> > >> > > files?
> > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > >> Thanks,
> > > > >> > >> > > >> John
> > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:40 PM,
> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > via
> > > > >> RT <
> > > > >> > >> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > Tue Feb 20 13:40:01 2018: Request 84134 was
acted
> > upon.
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > Transaction: Ticket created by
> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > Queue: met_help
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > Subject: verifying ozone
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > Owner: Nobody
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > Requestors: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > Status: new
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > Ticket <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > >> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > Hi, everyone,
> > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > I am helping the AQM group verify ozone and I
need
> > some
> > > > >> > >> assistance
> > > > >> > >> > in
> > > > >> > >> > > >> using
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > PB2NC (and then later point_stat, but let's
start
> with
> > > > >> > PB2NC). I
> > > > >> > >> > need
> > > > >> > >> > > >> to
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > be able to read in two quantities from the
prepbufr
> > file
> > > > and
> > > > >> > then
> > > > >> > >> > > >> combine
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > that to be able to compare to the two model
items.
> > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the bufr file, the variables at hand are
COPO
> (the
> > > > ozone
> > > > >> > >> > > >> concentration),
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > and also TPHR. TPHR is either -1 or -8
depending on
> > > > whether
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > >> > > >> observed
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > ozone is a 1-hr or 8-hr average.
> > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > In essence, we have two entities here
depending on
> the
> > > > >> value of
> > > > >> > >> > TPHR:
> > > > >> > >> > > >> the
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > 1-hr average ozone and the 8-hr average
ozone. But
> > they
> > > > >> have
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > >> > same
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > value.
> > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the model we also have two variables.
Both are
> > > called
> > > > >> > OZCON,
> > > > >> > >> but
> > > > >> > >> > > the
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > first one in the file is a 1-hr average and
the
> second
> > > one
> > > > >> is
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > >> > 8-hr
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > average.
> > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > The trick here is verifying 1-hr average with
1-hr
> > > > average,
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> > >> 8-hr
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > average with 8-hr average. I think there is
a
> > > > >> multiplication
> > > > >> > >> factor
> > > > >> > >> > > in
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > there somewhere, as the obs are in units of
> mole/mole,
> > > > while
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > >> > model
> > > > >> > >> > > >> is
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > in parts per billion (ppb).
> > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > I don't know if you've spoken with the AQM
team on
> how
> > > > >> exactly
> > > > >> > >> to do
> > > > >> > >> > > >> this,
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > but I was hoping to help them with this. If
you can
> > > > advise
> > > > >> on
> > > > >> > >> how
> > > > >> > >> > to
> > > > >> > >> > > do
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > this, that would be great!
> > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > Thanks!
> > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > Perry
> > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: verifying ozone
From: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
Time: Tue Mar 06 09:59:45 2018
Hi, Julie,
I will let you know when I test it.
Thanks!
Perry
On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:55 AM, Julie Prestopnik via RT
<met_help at ucar.edu>
wrote:
> Hi Perry. I was able to install it on tide last night.
>
> module use /global/noscrub/Julie.Prestopnik/modulefiles
> module load met/7.0
>
> Please let me know if you encounter any problems. It was late when
I
> installed it... :)
>
> Julie
>
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:25 AM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> >
> > Hi Perry,
> >
> > We just posted the met-7.0 release yesterday. Julie Prestopnik is
> actually
> > out at NCEP today, and she'll be the one to install it on WCOSS.
So I'll
> > let her chime in to let us know when she's able to do that.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > John
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:27 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> > >
> > > Hi, John,
> > >
> > > I am able to start working on this today. Is this available for
> testing
> > > now?
> > >
> > > Also I'm not entirely sure what you mean in that the obs and the
model
> > > don't match up well in time? In the example I sent you, you
have a set
> > of
> > > observations and all the forecast files that verify at that
particular
> > > time. Both the model and observed bufr file have 1-hourly
fields
> (hourly
> > > fields of 1-hr and hourly fields of 8-hr ozone - kind of hard to
> imagine
> > > that, but they are just values). So we will also need a way to
match
> up
> > > the observed field with the modeled field at the corresponding
time.
> > (For
> > > example, matching the 3-hr forecast from the 12Z model run with
the 15Z
> > > observed field.)
> > >
> > > I think this is best achieved with a different execution of
point_stat
> > for
> > > each individual hour, because that's how I do gridtobs anyway.
> > >
> > > What are your thoughts on the above?
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > Perry
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:32 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> > > met_help at ucar.edu
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Perry,
> > > >
> > > > Howard Soh updated the logic in the PB2NC to handle the 1 and
8-hour
> > COPO
> > > > observations in the way we discussed. I wanted to let you
know that
> I
> > > > tested it this afternoon and got some good results. The
sample
> > fcst/obs
> > > > data you sent doesn't line up well in time, so I just set a
very
> large
> > > > matching time window in Point-Stat.
> > > >
> > > > Here's the relevant pieces of the Point-Stat config file:
> > > >
> > > > fcst = {
> > > > field = [
> > > > { name = "OZCON"; level = "A01"; },
> > > > { name = "OZCON"; level = "A08"; }
> > > > ];
> > > > }
> > > > obs = {
> > > > message_type = [ "AIRNOW" ];
> > > > convert(x) = x*10^9;
> > > > field = [
> > > > { name = "COPO"; level = "A01"; },
> > > > { name = "COPO"; level = "A08"; }
> > > > ];
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > And I'm just *guessing* at that conversion factor. The
resulting
> > numbers
> > > > look about right, but its up to you to confirm. Using the
sample
> data
> > > you
> > > > sent me, this results in a mean error value of 12.64 and 15.48
for
> the
> > 1
> > > > and 8-hour accums, respectively. But the fcst/obs data are
actually
> > > offset
> > > > by 12 hours so these numbers don't mean much, other than
> demonstrating
> > > > there isn't a huge order of magnitude difference.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:06 PM, John Halley Gotway
<johnhg at ucar.edu
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Perry,
> > > > >
> > > > > I think I prefer option 2 as well. I'll ask Howard Soh, one
of the
> > > > > developers here, to add specific logic for the AIRNOW
message type,
> > > > where...
> > > > > - level = absolute value of TPHR
> > > > > - qc flag = QCIND
> > > > >
> > > > > John
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:00 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via
RT <
> > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Hi, John,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> What would be easier in comparing to the model output, do
you
> think?
> > > I
> > > > >> think that having it as some sort of "accumulation
variable" (the
> > 2nd
> > > > >> option) would work.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> In the model, though, they are not listed as either 1 or 8
hr
> > > > >> accumulations/averages. They are listed as either, for
example
> for
> > > the
> > > > 24
> > > > >> hr forecast, either "23-24 hr ave fcst" or "16-24 hr ave
fcst".
> > Would
> > > > be
> > > > >> easier if it said "1 hr ave fcst" or "8 hr ave fcst", but
again,
> > > that's
> > > > >> not
> > > > >> what we got. So I'm guessing that might make it a little
more
> > > > challenging
> > > > >> for the model to script up?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Perry
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:50 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT
<
> > > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Perry,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I wanted to check how point observations of precip are
stored in
> > > > >> PrepBUFR
> > > > >> > so I ran PB2NC on an old NDAS file using the -index
option.
> > Here's
> > > > >> what I
> > > > >> > found:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP06: TOTAL PRECIPITATION PAST 6
> > > > >> > HOURS types: ADPSFC
> > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP24: TOTAL PRECIPITATION PAST 24
> > > > >> > HOURS types: ADPSFC
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > So basically, the accumulation interval exists in the
> observation
> > > > >> variable
> > > > >> > name. Following that paradigm, if the AIRNOW
observations were
> > > stored
> > > > >> > using COPO01 and COPO08, then MET would already be able
to
> handle
> > > them
> > > > >> > already. But I suppose we're likely stuck with what
we've got.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I can see 2 ways we could handle this for processing
AIRNOW
> > message
> > > > >> > types...
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Option 1: Follow the precip example and modify the
observation
> > > > variable
> > > > >> > names by appending the TPHR value. Instead of COPO, we'd
have
> > > > >> observations
> > > > >> > named COPO01 and COPO08. And if we ever see TPHR = -24,
that'd
> > > > produce
> > > > >> a
> > > > >> > COPO24 variable name.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Option 2: We could keep the COPO variable name unchanged,
and
> > > instead
> > > > >> set
> > > > >> > the "level" value for these observations to indicate the
> > > accumulation
> > > > >> > interval. If you look at the ascii2nc usage statement,
you'll
> see
> > > the
> > > > >> > following:
> > > > >> > "Level" is the pressure level (hPa) or accumulation
interval
> > > > >> (HH[MMSS]).
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > So we could use the value of TPHR to define the level as
an
> > > > >> "accumulation"
> > > > >> > interval.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Either option could be made to work in MET. Does one
make more
> > > sense
> > > > to
> > > > >> > you than the other?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > While we're doing this, I assume we should also using the
QCIND
> > > value
> > > > to
> > > > >> > populate the obs_qty (i.e. quality control) setting?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > >> > John
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:34 PM, John Halley Gotway <
> > > johnhg at ucar.edu>
> > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > Perry,
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Until users dive into the details, we won't know about
these
> > sorts
> > > > of
> > > > >> -1
> > > > >> > > vs -8 issues. But once we identify the requirements,
we can
> > > update
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > software to handle them.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > So please keep the feedback coming.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Thanks,
> > > > >> > > John
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:31 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov
via
> RT
> > <
> > > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > >
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> Hi, John,
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> OK, thanks! I thought the latest version of MET that
we were
> > > using
> > > > >> was
> > > > >> > >> configured for the air quality applications?
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> Perry
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:26 PM, John Halley Gotway
via RT <
> > > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> > Perry,
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > I just grabbed them and ran the forecast data
through the
> > > > >> > >> plot_data_plane
> > > > >> > >> > utility. Looks like specifying the level as an
> accumulation
> > > type
> > > > >> does
> > > > >> > >> the
> > > > >> > >> > trick:
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_data_plane AWIP3D18.tm00
> > > > OZCON_1hr.ps
> > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A1";'
> > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_data_plane AWIP3D18.tm00
> > > > OZCON_8hr.ps
> > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A8";'
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > The resulting images are attached.
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > Next, I ran pb2nc using the -index option to see a
> > description
> > > of
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > >> > prepda contents:
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/pb2nc prepda.2017081000
> > > <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > >> > >> > prepda.2017081000.nc /usr/local/met-6.1/share/met/
> > > > >> > >> > config/PB2NCConfig_default
> > > > >> > >> > -index -log pb2nc_index.log
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Header variables:
> > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SID: STATION IDENTIFICATION
> > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: XOB: LONGITUDE
> > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: YOB: LATITUDE
> > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: DHR: OBSERVATION TIME MINUS CYCLE
TIME
> > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ELV:
> > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYP: PREPBUFR REPORT TYPE
> > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: T29: DATA DUMP REPORT TYPE
> > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ITP:
> > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
> > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Observation variables:
> > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: COPO: CONCENTRATION OF
> > > > >> > >> > POLLUTANT types:
AIRNOW
> > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYPO: TYPE OF POLLUTANT
> > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: CAT: PREPBUFR DATA LEVEL CATEGORY
> > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: PROCN: PROCESS NUMBER FOR THIS MPI
RUN
> > (OBTAINED
> > > > >> FROM
> > > > >> > >> > SCRIPT)
> > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SQN: REPORT SEQUENCE NUMBER
> > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: QCIND: QUALITY CONTROL INDICATION OF
> FOLLOWING
> > > > >> > >> > DATA types: AIRNOW
> > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TSIG: TIME SIGNIFICANCE
> > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: RPT: REPORTED OBSERVATION TIME
> > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TPHR: TIME PERIOD OR DISPLACEMENT
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > I see the COPO and TPHR observations listed. We'll
need to
> > > > update
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > >> > PB2NC code to handle the logic you've described.
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > One option for specifying the 1 vs 8 hour difference
would
> be
> > > to
> > > > >> mimic
> > > > >> > >> how
> > > > >> > >> > different precip accumulation intervals are stored
for
> > gauges.
> > > > >> I'll
> > > > >> > >> look
> > > > >> > >> > more into how we might do that.
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > Thanks,
> > > > >> > >> > John
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:17 PM,
perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> via
> > > RT
> > > > <
> > > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > >
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > Hi, John,
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > I was just wondering if you have found and
received these
> > > > files.
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > Thanks!
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > Perry
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Perry Shafran -
NOAA
> > > > Affiliate
> > > > >> <
> > > > >> > >> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > I just transferred some model files and an ob
file here
> > on
> > > > >> Theia.
> > > > >> > >> All
> > > > >> > >> > > > these model files verify at the ob time here.
Have a
> > look:
> > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > >
/scratch4/NCEPDEV/meso/save/Perry.Shafran/for_john
> > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
> > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > Perry
> > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 6:55 PM, John Halley
Gotway via
> > RT
> > > <
> > > > >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > >> Hi Perry,
> > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > >> Can you please point me to a model output file
> > containing
> > > > the
> > > > >> > OZCON
> > > > >> > >> > > >> fields? Presumably, these are in GRIB1 or 2
format,
> and
> > > > >> > hopefully,
> > > > >> > >> > > >> there's
> > > > >> > >> > > >> some flag in the header that will enable us to
> > distinguish
> > > > >> > between
> > > > >> > >> the
> > > > >> > >> > > >> GRIB
> > > > >> > >> > > >> records containing 1 and 8 hour averages.
> > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > >> As for the point observations, I suspect that
we'll
> need
> > > to
> > > > >> add
> > > > >> > >> logic
> > > > >> > >> > to
> > > > >> > >> > > >> PB2NC to distinguish between the 1 and 8 hour
COPO
> > > > >> > concentrations.
> > > > >> > >> > > >> Perhaps
> > > > >> > >> > > >> we could update PB2NC to use the TPHR values to
> renamed
> > > COPO
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> > >> COPO_1
> > > > >> > >> > > and
> > > > >> > >> > > >> COPO_8?
> > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > >> Are these COPO point observations present in
NDAS or
> > GDAS
> > > > >> > PrepBUFR
> > > > >> > >> > > files?
> > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > >> Thanks,
> > > > >> > >> > > >> John
> > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:40 PM,
> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > via
> > > > >> RT <
> > > > >> > >> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > Tue Feb 20 13:40:01 2018: Request 84134 was
acted
> > upon.
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > Transaction: Ticket created by
> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > Queue: met_help
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > Subject: verifying ozone
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > Owner: Nobody
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > Requestors: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > Status: new
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > Ticket <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > >> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > Hi, everyone,
> > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > I am helping the AQM group verify ozone and I
need
> > some
> > > > >> > >> assistance
> > > > >> > >> > in
> > > > >> > >> > > >> using
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > PB2NC (and then later point_stat, but let's
start
> with
> > > > >> > PB2NC). I
> > > > >> > >> > need
> > > > >> > >> > > >> to
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > be able to read in two quantities from the
prepbufr
> > file
> > > > and
> > > > >> > then
> > > > >> > >> > > >> combine
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > that to be able to compare to the two model
items.
> > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the bufr file, the variables at hand are
COPO
> (the
> > > > ozone
> > > > >> > >> > > >> concentration),
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > and also TPHR. TPHR is either -1 or -8
depending on
> > > > whether
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > >> > > >> observed
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > ozone is a 1-hr or 8-hr average.
> > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > In essence, we have two entities here
depending on
> the
> > > > >> value of
> > > > >> > >> > TPHR:
> > > > >> > >> > > >> the
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > 1-hr average ozone and the 8-hr average
ozone. But
> > they
> > > > >> have
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > >> > same
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > value.
> > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the model we also have two variables.
Both are
> > > called
> > > > >> > OZCON,
> > > > >> > >> but
> > > > >> > >> > > the
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > first one in the file is a 1-hr average and
the
> second
> > > one
> > > > >> is
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > >> > 8-hr
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > average.
> > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > The trick here is verifying 1-hr average with
1-hr
> > > > average,
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> > >> 8-hr
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > average with 8-hr average. I think there is
a
> > > > >> multiplication
> > > > >> > >> factor
> > > > >> > >> > > in
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > there somewhere, as the obs are in units of
> mole/mole,
> > > > while
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > >> > model
> > > > >> > >> > > >> is
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > in parts per billion (ppb).
> > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > I don't know if you've spoken with the AQM
team on
> how
> > > > >> exactly
> > > > >> > >> to do
> > > > >> > >> > > >> this,
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > but I was hoping to help them with this. If
you can
> > > > advise
> > > > >> on
> > > > >> > >> how
> > > > >> > >> > to
> > > > >> > >> > > do
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > this, that would be great!
> > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > Thanks!
> > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > >> > Perry
> > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: verifying ozone
From: Julie Prestopnik
Time: Tue Mar 06 10:00:26 2018
Arg. I see there is a prod switch tomorrow.
I'll try to install on gyre as soon as I can.
Julie
On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:54 AM, Julie Prestopnik <jpresto at ucar.edu>
wrote:
> Hi Perry. I was able to install it on tide last night.
>
> module use /global/noscrub/Julie.Prestopnik/modulefiles
> module load met/7.0
>
> Please let me know if you encounter any problems. It was late when
I
> installed it... :)
>
> Julie
>
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:25 AM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
>>
>> Hi Perry,
>>
>> We just posted the met-7.0 release yesterday. Julie Prestopnik is
>> actually
>> out at NCEP today, and she'll be the one to install it on WCOSS.
So I'll
>> let her chime in to let us know when she's able to do that.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> John
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:27 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
>> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
>> >
>> > Hi, John,
>> >
>> > I am able to start working on this today. Is this available for
testing
>> > now?
>> >
>> > Also I'm not entirely sure what you mean in that the obs and the
model
>> > don't match up well in time? In the example I sent you, you have
a set
>> of
>> > observations and all the forecast files that verify at that
particular
>> > time. Both the model and observed bufr file have 1-hourly fields
>> (hourly
>> > fields of 1-hr and hourly fields of 8-hr ozone - kind of hard to
imagine
>> > that, but they are just values). So we will also need a way to
match up
>> > the observed field with the modeled field at the corresponding
time.
>> (For
>> > example, matching the 3-hr forecast from the 12Z model run with
the 15Z
>> > observed field.)
>> >
>> > I think this is best achieved with a different execution of
point_stat
>> for
>> > each individual hour, because that's how I do gridtobs anyway.
>> >
>> > What are your thoughts on the above?
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>> >
>> > Perry
>> >
>> > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:32 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
>> > met_help at ucar.edu
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi Perry,
>> > >
>> > > Howard Soh updated the logic in the PB2NC to handle the 1 and
8-hour
>> COPO
>> > > observations in the way we discussed. I wanted to let you know
that I
>> > > tested it this afternoon and got some good results. The sample
>> fcst/obs
>> > > data you sent doesn't line up well in time, so I just set a
very large
>> > > matching time window in Point-Stat.
>> > >
>> > > Here's the relevant pieces of the Point-Stat config file:
>> > >
>> > > fcst = {
>> > > field = [
>> > > { name = "OZCON"; level = "A01"; },
>> > > { name = "OZCON"; level = "A08"; }
>> > > ];
>> > > }
>> > > obs = {
>> > > message_type = [ "AIRNOW" ];
>> > > convert(x) = x*10^9;
>> > > field = [
>> > > { name = "COPO"; level = "A01"; },
>> > > { name = "COPO"; level = "A08"; }
>> > > ];
>> > > }
>> > >
>> > > And I'm just *guessing* at that conversion factor. The
resulting
>> numbers
>> > > look about right, but its up to you to confirm. Using the
sample data
>> > you
>> > > sent me, this results in a mean error value of 12.64 and 15.48
for
>> the 1
>> > > and 8-hour accums, respectively. But the fcst/obs data are
actually
>> > offset
>> > > by 12 hours so these numbers don't mean much, other than
demonstrating
>> > > there isn't a huge order of magnitude difference.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > John
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:06 PM, John Halley Gotway
<johnhg at ucar.edu>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Perry,
>> > > >
>> > > > I think I prefer option 2 as well. I'll ask Howard Soh, one
of the
>> > > > developers here, to add specific logic for the AIRNOW message
type,
>> > > where...
>> > > > - level = absolute value of TPHR
>> > > > - qc flag = QCIND
>> > > >
>> > > > John
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:00 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via
RT <
>> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >>
>> > > >> <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Hi, John,
>> > > >>
>> > > >> What would be easier in comparing to the model output, do
you
>> think?
>> > I
>> > > >> think that having it as some sort of "accumulation variable"
(the
>> 2nd
>> > > >> option) would work.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> In the model, though, they are not listed as either 1 or 8
hr
>> > > >> accumulations/averages. They are listed as either, for
example for
>> > the
>> > > 24
>> > > >> hr forecast, either "23-24 hr ave fcst" or "16-24 hr ave
fcst".
>> Would
>> > > be
>> > > >> easier if it said "1 hr ave fcst" or "8 hr ave fcst", but
again,
>> > that's
>> > > >> not
>> > > >> what we got. So I'm guessing that might make it a little
more
>> > > challenging
>> > > >> for the model to script up?
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Perry
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:50 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
>> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> > Perry,
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > I wanted to check how point observations of precip are
stored in
>> > > >> PrepBUFR
>> > > >> > so I ran PB2NC on an old NDAS file using the -index
option.
>> Here's
>> > > >> what I
>> > > >> > found:
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP06: TOTAL PRECIPITATION PAST 6
>> > > >> > HOURS types: ADPSFC
>> > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP24: TOTAL PRECIPITATION PAST 24
>> > > >> > HOURS types: ADPSFC
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > So basically, the accumulation interval exists in the
observation
>> > > >> variable
>> > > >> > name. Following that paradigm, if the AIRNOW observations
were
>> > stored
>> > > >> > using COPO01 and COPO08, then MET would already be able to
handle
>> > them
>> > > >> > already. But I suppose we're likely stuck with what we've
got.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > I can see 2 ways we could handle this for processing
AIRNOW
>> message
>> > > >> > types...
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Option 1: Follow the precip example and modify the
observation
>> > > variable
>> > > >> > names by appending the TPHR value. Instead of COPO, we'd
have
>> > > >> observations
>> > > >> > named COPO01 and COPO08. And if we ever see TPHR = -24,
that'd
>> > > produce
>> > > >> a
>> > > >> > COPO24 variable name.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Option 2: We could keep the COPO variable name unchanged,
and
>> > instead
>> > > >> set
>> > > >> > the "level" value for these observations to indicate the
>> > accumulation
>> > > >> > interval. If you look at the ascii2nc usage statement,
you'll
>> see
>> > the
>> > > >> > following:
>> > > >> > "Level" is the pressure level (hPa) or accumulation
interval
>> > > >> (HH[MMSS]).
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > So we could use the value of TPHR to define the level as
an
>> > > >> "accumulation"
>> > > >> > interval.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Either option could be made to work in MET. Does one make
more
>> > sense
>> > > to
>> > > >> > you than the other?
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > While we're doing this, I assume we should also using the
QCIND
>> > value
>> > > to
>> > > >> > populate the obs_qty (i.e. quality control) setting?
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Thanks,
>> > > >> > John
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:34 PM, John Halley Gotway <
>> > johnhg at ucar.edu>
>> > > >> > wrote:
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > > Perry,
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > Until users dive into the details, we won't know about
these
>> sorts
>> > > of
>> > > >> -1
>> > > >> > > vs -8 issues. But once we identify the requirements, we
can
>> > update
>> > > >> the
>> > > >> > > software to handle them.
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > So please keep the feedback coming.
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > Thanks,
>> > > >> > > John
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:31 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov
via
>> RT <
>> > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > >>
>> > > >> > >> <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
>> >
>> > > >> > >>
>> > > >> > >> Hi, John,
>> > > >> > >>
>> > > >> > >> OK, thanks! I thought the latest version of MET that
we were
>> > using
>> > > >> was
>> > > >> > >> configured for the air quality applications?
>> > > >> > >>
>> > > >> > >> Perry
>> > > >> > >>
>> > > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:26 PM, John Halley Gotway via
RT <
>> > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > > >> > >>
>> > > >> > >> > Perry,
>> > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > I just grabbed them and ran the forecast data through
the
>> > > >> > >> plot_data_plane
>> > > >> > >> > utility. Looks like specifying the level as an
accumulation
>> > type
>> > > >> does
>> > > >> > >> the
>> > > >> > >> > trick:
>> > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_data_plane AWIP3D18.tm00
>> > > OZCON_1hr.ps
>> > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A1";'
>> > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_data_plane AWIP3D18.tm00
>> > > OZCON_8hr.ps
>> > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A8";'
>> > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > The resulting images are attached.
>> > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > Next, I ran pb2nc using the -index option to see a
>> description
>> > of
>> > > >> the
>> > > >> > >> > prepda contents:
>> > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/pb2nc prepda.2017081000
>> <(201)%20708-1000>
>> > <(201)%20708-1000>
>> > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
>> > > >> > >> > prepda.2017081000.nc /usr/local/met-6.1/share/met/
>> > > >> > >> > config/PB2NCConfig_default
>> > > >> > >> > -index -log pb2nc_index.log
>> > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Header variables:
>> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SID: STATION IDENTIFICATION
>> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: XOB: LONGITUDE
>> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: YOB: LATITUDE
>> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: DHR: OBSERVATION TIME MINUS CYCLE
TIME
>> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ELV:
>> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYP: PREPBUFR REPORT TYPE
>> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: T29: DATA DUMP REPORT TYPE
>> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ITP:
>> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
>> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Observation variables:
>> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: COPO: CONCENTRATION OF
>> > > >> > >> > POLLUTANT types:
AIRNOW
>> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYPO: TYPE OF POLLUTANT
>> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: CAT: PREPBUFR DATA LEVEL CATEGORY
>> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: PROCN: PROCESS NUMBER FOR THIS MPI RUN
>> (OBTAINED
>> > > >> FROM
>> > > >> > >> > SCRIPT)
>> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SQN: REPORT SEQUENCE NUMBER
>> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: QCIND: QUALITY CONTROL INDICATION OF
>> FOLLOWING
>> > > >> > >> > DATA types: AIRNOW
>> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TSIG: TIME SIGNIFICANCE
>> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: RPT: REPORTED OBSERVATION TIME
>> > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TPHR: TIME PERIOD OR DISPLACEMENT
>> > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > I see the COPO and TPHR observations listed. We'll
need to
>> > > update
>> > > >> the
>> > > >> > >> > PB2NC code to handle the logic you've described.
>> > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > One option for specifying the 1 vs 8 hour difference
would
>> be
>> > to
>> > > >> mimic
>> > > >> > >> how
>> > > >> > >> > different precip accumulation intervals are stored
for
>> gauges.
>> > > >> I'll
>> > > >> > >> look
>> > > >> > >> > more into how we might do that.
>> > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > Thanks,
>> > > >> > >> > John
>> > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:17 PM,
perry.shafran at noaa.gov
>> via
>> > RT
>> > > <
>> > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > >
>> > > >> > >> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
>> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
>> > > >
>> > > >> > >> > >
>> > > >> > >> > > Hi, John,
>> > > >> > >> > >
>> > > >> > >> > > I was just wondering if you have found and received
these
>> > > files.
>> > > >> > >> > >
>> > > >> > >> > > Thanks!
>> > > >> > >> > >
>> > > >> > >> > > Perry
>> > > >> > >> > >
>> > > >> > >> > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Perry Shafran -
NOAA
>> > > Affiliate
>> > > >> <
>> > > >> > >> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
>> > > >> > >> > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
>> > > >> > >> > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > I just transferred some model files and an ob
file here
>> on
>> > > >> Theia.
>> > > >> > >> All
>> > > >> > >> > > > these model files verify at the ob time here.
Have a
>> look:
>> > > >> > >> > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > >
/scratch4/NCEPDEV/meso/save/Perry.Shafran/for_john
>> > > >> > >> > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
>> > > >> > >> > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > Perry
>> > > >> > >> > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 6:55 PM, John Halley
Gotway via
>> RT
>> > <
>> > > >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > > >> > >> > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > >> Hi Perry,
>> > > >> > >> > > >>
>> > > >> > >> > > >> Can you please point me to a model output file
>> containing
>> > > the
>> > > >> > OZCON
>> > > >> > >> > > >> fields? Presumably, these are in GRIB1 or 2
format,
>> and
>> > > >> > hopefully,
>> > > >> > >> > > >> there's
>> > > >> > >> > > >> some flag in the header that will enable us to
>> distinguish
>> > > >> > between
>> > > >> > >> the
>> > > >> > >> > > >> GRIB
>> > > >> > >> > > >> records containing 1 and 8 hour averages.
>> > > >> > >> > > >>
>> > > >> > >> > > >> As for the point observations, I suspect that
we'll
>> need
>> > to
>> > > >> add
>> > > >> > >> logic
>> > > >> > >> > to
>> > > >> > >> > > >> PB2NC to distinguish between the 1 and 8 hour
COPO
>> > > >> > concentrations.
>> > > >> > >> > > >> Perhaps
>> > > >> > >> > > >> we could update PB2NC to use the TPHR values to
renamed
>> > COPO
>> > > >> to
>> > > >> > >> COPO_1
>> > > >> > >> > > and
>> > > >> > >> > > >> COPO_8?
>> > > >> > >> > > >>
>> > > >> > >> > > >> Are these COPO point observations present in
NDAS or
>> GDAS
>> > > >> > PrepBUFR
>> > > >> > >> > > files?
>> > > >> > >> > > >>
>> > > >> > >> > > >> Thanks,
>> > > >> > >> > > >> John
>> > > >> > >> > > >>
>> > > >> > >> > > >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:40 PM,
>> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
>> > via
>> > > >> RT <
>> > > >> > >> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > > >> > >> > > >>
>> > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > >> > Tue Feb 20 13:40:01 2018: Request 84134 was
acted
>> upon.
>> > > >> > >> > > >> > Transaction: Ticket created by
>> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
>> > > >> > >> > > >> > Queue: met_help
>> > > >> > >> > > >> > Subject: verifying ozone
>> > > >> > >> > > >> > Owner: Nobody
>> > > >> > >> > > >> > Requestors: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
>> > > >> > >> > > >> > Status: new
>> > > >> > >> > > >> > Ticket <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
>> > > >> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
>> > > >> > >> > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > >> > Hi, everyone,
>> > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > >> > I am helping the AQM group verify ozone and I
need
>> some
>> > > >> > >> assistance
>> > > >> > >> > in
>> > > >> > >> > > >> using
>> > > >> > >> > > >> > PB2NC (and then later point_stat, but let's
start
>> with
>> > > >> > PB2NC). I
>> > > >> > >> > need
>> > > >> > >> > > >> to
>> > > >> > >> > > >> > be able to read in two quantities from the
prepbufr
>> file
>> > > and
>> > > >> > then
>> > > >> > >> > > >> combine
>> > > >> > >> > > >> > that to be able to compare to the two model
items.
>> > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > >> > In the bufr file, the variables at hand are
COPO (the
>> > > ozone
>> > > >> > >> > > >> concentration),
>> > > >> > >> > > >> > and also TPHR. TPHR is either -1 or -8
depending on
>> > > whether
>> > > >> > the
>> > > >> > >> > > >> observed
>> > > >> > >> > > >> > ozone is a 1-hr or 8-hr average.
>> > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > >> > In essence, we have two entities here
depending on
>> the
>> > > >> value of
>> > > >> > >> > TPHR:
>> > > >> > >> > > >> the
>> > > >> > >> > > >> > 1-hr average ozone and the 8-hr average ozone.
But
>> they
>> > > >> have
>> > > >> > the
>> > > >> > >> > same
>> > > >> > >> > > >> > value.
>> > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > >> > In the model we also have two variables. Both
are
>> > called
>> > > >> > OZCON,
>> > > >> > >> but
>> > > >> > >> > > the
>> > > >> > >> > > >> > first one in the file is a 1-hr average and
the
>> second
>> > one
>> > > >> is
>> > > >> > the
>> > > >> > >> > 8-hr
>> > > >> > >> > > >> > average.
>> > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > >> > The trick here is verifying 1-hr average with
1-hr
>> > > average,
>> > > >> and
>> > > >> > >> 8-hr
>> > > >> > >> > > >> > average with 8-hr average. I think there is a
>> > > >> multiplication
>> > > >> > >> factor
>> > > >> > >> > > in
>> > > >> > >> > > >> > there somewhere, as the obs are in units of
>> mole/mole,
>> > > while
>> > > >> > the
>> > > >> > >> > model
>> > > >> > >> > > >> is
>> > > >> > >> > > >> > in parts per billion (ppb).
>> > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > >> > I don't know if you've spoken with the AQM
team on
>> how
>> > > >> exactly
>> > > >> > >> to do
>> > > >> > >> > > >> this,
>> > > >> > >> > > >> > but I was hoping to help them with this. If
you can
>> > > advise
>> > > >> on
>> > > >> > >> how
>> > > >> > >> > to
>> > > >> > >> > > do
>> > > >> > >> > > >> > this, that would be great!
>> > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > >> > Thanks!
>> > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > >> > Perry
>> > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > >>
>> > > >> > >> > > >>
>> > > >> > >> > > >
>> > > >> > >> > >
>> > > >> > >> > >
>> > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >>
>> > > >> > >>
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: verifying ozone
From: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
Time: Tue Mar 06 10:07:04 2018
Hi, John,
For ozone (and for PM likely as well), the DHR will tell you the time
of
the observation. The DHR ranges from -11 to 12 in each file, so if
you
have an observation with DHR of -10, for example, that observations is
valid at 02Z. I guess I should have done better to note this to you
previously, but you will need this additional information in order to
get
the valid time of the observation. My apologies for not realizing
this
sooner (like before 7.0 was released).
The 00Z valid time (as in your example), I just realized, is a special
case. Since the DHR ranges from -11 to 12, that means that the valid
times
in the file range from 01Z to 00Z the next day. That's the reason for
this
- it is indeed the 2017080912 file but this particular valid time is
2017081000 because DHR is 12 in this case. So that makes it extra
special
fun for verifying for the 00Z valid time, since we will have to go to
the
previous day's obs file to verify that. Every other hour of the day,
you
won't see this mismatch.
Perry
On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:59 AM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> Perry,
>
> Yes, I see that all the AWIP* GRIB2 files you sent me are valid at
> 2017081000.
>
> However, the point observations in the prepda.2017081000 are valid
at
> 20170809_120000. Or at least that's what the output of PB2NC tells
me!
>
> The timestamps of the data contained in prepda.2017081000 is 12-
hours
> earlier than the timestamp of that file indicates. Here's a log
message
> from PB2NC listing out the "center time" for that file:
> DEBUG 1: Processing Bufr File: prepda.2017081000
> DEBUG 2: Bufr Time Center: 20170809_120000
>
> Perhaps there's a problem in the naming convention for that "prepda"
> file... or perhaps there's a good reason for the 12-hour offset...
or
> perhaps there's some problem in the MET code and we're not reading
data
> from that file correctly?
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:37 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> >
> > OK, thanks! So this is included in the latest MET release. I
think there
> > will definitely be other questions, if I want to be able to verify
each
> > hourly forecast of ozone with the observation. The DHR tells us
which
> hour
> > that we are looking for to verify.
> >
> > Perry
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:25 AM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Perry,
> > >
> > > We just posted the met-7.0 release yesterday. Julie Prestopnik
is
> > actually
> > > out at NCEP today, and she'll be the one to install it on WCOSS.
So
> I'll
> > > let her chime in to let us know when she's able to do that.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > John
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:27 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
>
> > > >
> > > > Hi, John,
> > > >
> > > > I am able to start working on this today. Is this available
for
> > testing
> > > > now?
> > > >
> > > > Also I'm not entirely sure what you mean in that the obs and
the
> model
> > > > don't match up well in time? In the example I sent you, you
have a
> set
> > > of
> > > > observations and all the forecast files that verify at that
> particular
> > > > time. Both the model and observed bufr file have 1-hourly
fields
> > (hourly
> > > > fields of 1-hr and hourly fields of 8-hr ozone - kind of hard
to
> > imagine
> > > > that, but they are just values). So we will also need a way
to match
> > up
> > > > the observed field with the modeled field at the corresponding
time.
> > > (For
> > > > example, matching the 3-hr forecast from the 12Z model run
with the
> 15Z
> > > > observed field.)
> > > >
> > > > I think this is best achieved with a different execution of
> point_stat
> > > for
> > > > each individual hour, because that's how I do gridtobs anyway.
> > > >
> > > > What are your thoughts on the above?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > Perry
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:32 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> > > > met_help at ucar.edu
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Perry,
> > > > >
> > > > > Howard Soh updated the logic in the PB2NC to handle the 1
and
> 8-hour
> > > COPO
> > > > > observations in the way we discussed. I wanted to let you
know
> that
> > I
> > > > > tested it this afternoon and got some good results. The
sample
> > > fcst/obs
> > > > > data you sent doesn't line up well in time, so I just set a
very
> > large
> > > > > matching time window in Point-Stat.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's the relevant pieces of the Point-Stat config file:
> > > > >
> > > > > fcst = {
> > > > > field = [
> > > > > { name = "OZCON"; level = "A01"; },
> > > > > { name = "OZCON"; level = "A08"; }
> > > > > ];
> > > > > }
> > > > > obs = {
> > > > > message_type = [ "AIRNOW" ];
> > > > > convert(x) = x*10^9;
> > > > > field = [
> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level = "A01"; },
> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level = "A08"; }
> > > > > ];
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > And I'm just *guessing* at that conversion factor. The
resulting
> > > numbers
> > > > > look about right, but its up to you to confirm. Using the
sample
> > data
> > > > you
> > > > > sent me, this results in a mean error value of 12.64 and
15.48 for
> > the
> > > 1
> > > > > and 8-hour accums, respectively. But the fcst/obs data are
> actually
> > > > offset
> > > > > by 12 hours so these numbers don't mean much, other than
> > demonstrating
> > > > > there isn't a huge order of magnitude difference.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > John
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:06 PM, John Halley Gotway <
> johnhg at ucar.edu
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Perry,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think I prefer option 2 as well. I'll ask Howard Soh,
one of
> the
> > > > > > developers here, to add specific logic for the AIRNOW
message
> type,
> > > > > where...
> > > > > > - level = absolute value of TPHR
> > > > > > - qc flag = QCIND
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:00 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov
via RT <
> > > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Hi, John,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> What would be easier in comparing to the model output, do
you
> > think?
> > > > I
> > > > > >> think that having it as some sort of "accumulation
variable"
> (the
> > > 2nd
> > > > > >> option) would work.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> In the model, though, they are not listed as either 1 or
8 hr
> > > > > >> accumulations/averages. They are listed as either, for
example
> > for
> > > > the
> > > > > 24
> > > > > >> hr forecast, either "23-24 hr ave fcst" or "16-24 hr ave
fcst".
> > > Would
> > > > > be
> > > > > >> easier if it said "1 hr ave fcst" or "8 hr ave fcst", but
again,
> > > > that's
> > > > > >> not
> > > > > >> what we got. So I'm guessing that might make it a little
more
> > > > > challenging
> > > > > >> for the model to script up?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Perry
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:50 PM, John Halley Gotway via
RT <
> > > > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > Perry,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > I wanted to check how point observations of precip are
stored
> in
> > > > > >> PrepBUFR
> > > > > >> > so I ran PB2NC on an old NDAS file using the -index
option.
> > > Here's
> > > > > >> what I
> > > > > >> > found:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP06: TOTAL PRECIPITATION PAST 6
> > > > > >> > HOURS types: ADPSFC
> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP24: TOTAL PRECIPITATION PAST 24
> > > > > >> > HOURS types: ADPSFC
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > So basically, the accumulation interval exists in the
> > observation
> > > > > >> variable
> > > > > >> > name. Following that paradigm, if the AIRNOW
observations
> were
> > > > stored
> > > > > >> > using COPO01 and COPO08, then MET would already be able
to
> > handle
> > > > them
> > > > > >> > already. But I suppose we're likely stuck with what
we've
> got.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > I can see 2 ways we could handle this for processing
AIRNOW
> > > message
> > > > > >> > types...
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Option 1: Follow the precip example and modify the
observation
> > > > > variable
> > > > > >> > names by appending the TPHR value. Instead of COPO,
we'd have
> > > > > >> observations
> > > > > >> > named COPO01 and COPO08. And if we ever see TPHR =
-24,
> that'd
> > > > > produce
> > > > > >> a
> > > > > >> > COPO24 variable name.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Option 2: We could keep the COPO variable name
unchanged, and
> > > > instead
> > > > > >> set
> > > > > >> > the "level" value for these observations to indicate
the
> > > > accumulation
> > > > > >> > interval. If you look at the ascii2nc usage statement,
you'll
> > see
> > > > the
> > > > > >> > following:
> > > > > >> > "Level" is the pressure level (hPa) or accumulation
> interval
> > > > > >> (HH[MMSS]).
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > So we could use the value of TPHR to define the level
as an
> > > > > >> "accumulation"
> > > > > >> > interval.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Either option could be made to work in MET. Does one
make
> more
> > > > sense
> > > > > to
> > > > > >> > you than the other?
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > While we're doing this, I assume we should also using
the
> QCIND
> > > > value
> > > > > to
> > > > > >> > populate the obs_qty (i.e. quality control) setting?
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > > >> > John
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:34 PM, John Halley Gotway <
> > > > johnhg at ucar.edu>
> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > Perry,
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Until users dive into the details, we won't know
about these
> > > sorts
> > > > > of
> > > > > >> -1
> > > > > >> > > vs -8 issues. But once we identify the requirements,
we can
> > > > update
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > software to handle them.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > So please keep the feedback coming.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Thanks,
> > > > > >> > > John
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:31 PM,
perry.shafran at noaa.gov via
> > RT
> > > <
> > > > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> > >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > >
> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> > >> Hi, John,
> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> > >> OK, thanks! I thought the latest version of MET
that we
> were
> > > > using
> > > > > >> was
> > > > > >> > >> configured for the air quality applications?
> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> > >> Perry
> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:26 PM, John Halley Gotway
via RT
> <
> > > > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> > >> > Perry,
> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> > >> > I just grabbed them and ran the forecast data
through the
> > > > > >> > >> plot_data_plane
> > > > > >> > >> > utility. Looks like specifying the level as an
> > accumulation
> > > > type
> > > > > >> does
> > > > > >> > >> the
> > > > > >> > >> > trick:
> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_data_plane
AWIP3D18.tm00
> > > > > OZCON_1hr.ps
> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A1";'
> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_data_plane
AWIP3D18.tm00
> > > > > OZCON_8hr.ps
> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A8";'
> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> > >> > The resulting images are attached.
> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> > >> > Next, I ran pb2nc using the -index option to see a
> > > description
> > > > of
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > >> > prepda contents:
> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/pb2nc prepda.2017081000
> > > > <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > >> > >> > prepda.2017081000.nc /usr/local/met-6.1/share/met/
> > > > > >> > >> > config/PB2NCConfig_default
> > > > > >> > >> > -index -log pb2nc_index.log
> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Header variables:
> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SID: STATION IDENTIFICATION
> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: XOB: LONGITUDE
> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: YOB: LATITUDE
> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: DHR: OBSERVATION TIME MINUS CYCLE
TIME
> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ELV:
> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYP: PREPBUFR REPORT TYPE
> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: T29: DATA DUMP REPORT TYPE
> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ITP:
> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Observation variables:
> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: COPO: CONCENTRATION OF
> > > > > >> > >> > POLLUTANT types:
AIRNOW
> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYPO: TYPE OF POLLUTANT
> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: CAT: PREPBUFR DATA LEVEL CATEGORY
> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: PROCN: PROCESS NUMBER FOR THIS MPI
RUN
> > > (OBTAINED
> > > > > >> FROM
> > > > > >> > >> > SCRIPT)
> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SQN: REPORT SEQUENCE NUMBER
> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: QCIND: QUALITY CONTROL INDICATION
OF
> > FOLLOWING
> > > > > >> > >> > DATA types: AIRNOW
> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TSIG: TIME SIGNIFICANCE
> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: RPT: REPORTED OBSERVATION TIME
> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TPHR: TIME PERIOD OR DISPLACEMENT
> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> > >> > I see the COPO and TPHR observations listed.
We'll need
> to
> > > > > update
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > >> > PB2NC code to handle the logic you've described.
> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> > >> > One option for specifying the 1 vs 8 hour
difference
> would
> > be
> > > > to
> > > > > >> mimic
> > > > > >> > >> how
> > > > > >> > >> > different precip accumulation intervals are stored
for
> > > gauges.
> > > > > >> I'll
> > > > > >> > >> look
> > > > > >> > >> > more into how we might do that.
> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> > >> > Thanks,
> > > > > >> > >> > John
> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:17 PM,
perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > via
> > > > RT
> > > > > <
> > > > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >> > > Hi, John,
> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >> > > I was just wondering if you have found and
received
> these
> > > > > files.
> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >> > > Thanks!
> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >> > > Perry
> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >> > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Perry Shafran
- NOAA
> > > > > Affiliate
> > > > > >> <
> > > > > >> > >> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >> > > > I just transferred some model files and an ob
file
> here
> > > on
> > > > > >> Theia.
> > > > > >> > >> All
> > > > > >> > >> > > > these model files verify at the ob time here.
Have a
> > > look:
> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >> > > >
/scratch4/NCEPDEV/meso/save/Perry.Shafran/for_john
> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >> > > > Perry
> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >> > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 6:55 PM, John Halley
Gotway
> via
> > > RT
> > > > <
> > > > > >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Hi Perry,
> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Can you please point me to a model output
file
> > > containing
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > OZCON
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> fields? Presumably, these are in GRIB1 or 2
format,
> > and
> > > > > >> > hopefully,
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> there's
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> some flag in the header that will enable us
to
> > > distinguish
> > > > > >> > between
> > > > > >> > >> the
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> GRIB
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> records containing 1 and 8 hour averages.
> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> As for the point observations, I suspect that
we'll
> > need
> > > > to
> > > > > >> add
> > > > > >> > >> logic
> > > > > >> > >> > to
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> PB2NC to distinguish between the 1 and 8 hour
COPO
> > > > > >> > concentrations.
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Perhaps
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> we could update PB2NC to use the TPHR values
to
> > renamed
> > > > COPO
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> > >> COPO_1
> > > > > >> > >> > > and
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> COPO_8?
> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Are these COPO point observations present in
NDAS or
> > > GDAS
> > > > > >> > PrepBUFR
> > > > > >> > >> > > files?
> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> John
> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:40 PM,
> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > via
> > > > > >> RT <
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Tue Feb 20 13:40:01 2018: Request 84134 was
acted
> > > upon.
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Transaction: Ticket created by
> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Queue: met_help
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Subject: verifying ozone
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Owner: Nobody
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Requestors: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Status: new
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Ticket <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > > >> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Hi, everyone,
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I am helping the AQM group verify ozone and
I need
> > > some
> > > > > >> > >> assistance
> > > > > >> > >> > in
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> using
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > PB2NC (and then later point_stat, but let's
start
> > with
> > > > > >> > PB2NC). I
> > > > > >> > >> > need
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> to
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > be able to read in two quantities from the
> prepbufr
> > > file
> > > > > and
> > > > > >> > then
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> combine
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > that to be able to compare to the two model
items.
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the bufr file, the variables at hand are
COPO
> > (the
> > > > > ozone
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> concentration),
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > and also TPHR. TPHR is either -1 or -8
depending
> on
> > > > > whether
> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> observed
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > ozone is a 1-hr or 8-hr average.
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In essence, we have two entities here
depending on
> > the
> > > > > >> value of
> > > > > >> > >> > TPHR:
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> the
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > 1-hr average ozone and the 8-hr average
ozone.
> But
> > > they
> > > > > >> have
> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> > >> > same
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > value.
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the model we also have two variables.
Both are
> > > > called
> > > > > >> > OZCON,
> > > > > >> > >> but
> > > > > >> > >> > > the
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > first one in the file is a 1-hr average and
the
> > second
> > > > one
> > > > > >> is
> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> > >> > 8-hr
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average.
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > The trick here is verifying 1-hr average
with 1-hr
> > > > > average,
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> > >> 8-hr
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average with 8-hr average. I think there
is a
> > > > > >> multiplication
> > > > > >> > >> factor
> > > > > >> > >> > > in
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > there somewhere, as the obs are in units of
> > mole/mole,
> > > > > while
> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> > >> > model
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> is
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > in parts per billion (ppb).
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I don't know if you've spoken with the AQM
team on
> > how
> > > > > >> exactly
> > > > > >> > >> to do
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> this,
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > but I was hoping to help them with this.
If you
> can
> > > > > advise
> > > > > >> on
> > > > > >> > >> how
> > > > > >> > >> > to
> > > > > >> > >> > > do
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > this, that would be great!
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Thanks!
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Perry
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: verifying ozone
From: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
Time: Wed Mar 07 13:31:14 2018
Hi, John,
I was just wondering if you got this message regarding the DHR in the
ozone
airnow file. I hadn't received any acknowledgement of it. I think
that if
we are going to read this data correctly for verification, we'll have
to be
aware of this and use the DHR to add DHR to the file's timestamp in
order
to get the right ob at the right time.
Thanks!
Perry
On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Perry Shafran - NOAA Affiliate <
perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> Hi, John,
>
> For ozone (and for PM likely as well), the DHR will tell you the
time of
> the observation. The DHR ranges from -11 to 12 in each file, so if
you
> have an observation with DHR of -10, for example, that observations
is
> valid at 02Z. I guess I should have done better to note this to you
> previously, but you will need this additional information in order
to get
> the valid time of the observation. My apologies for not realizing
this
> sooner (like before 7.0 was released).
>
> The 00Z valid time (as in your example), I just realized, is a
special
> case. Since the DHR ranges from -11 to 12, that means that the
valid times
> in the file range from 01Z to 00Z the next day. That's the reason
for this
> - it is indeed the 2017080912 <(201)%20708-0912> file but this
particular
> valid time is 2017081000 <(201)%20708-1000> because DHR is 12 in
this
> case. So that makes it extra special fun for verifying for the 00Z
valid
> time, since we will have to go to the previous day's obs file to
verify
> that. Every other hour of the day, you won't see this mismatch.
>
> Perry
>
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:59 AM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
>> Perry,
>>
>> Yes, I see that all the AWIP* GRIB2 files you sent me are valid at
>> 2017081000.
>>
>> However, the point observations in the prepda.2017081000 are valid
at
>> 20170809_120000. Or at least that's what the output of PB2NC tells
me!
>>
>> The timestamps of the data contained in prepda.2017081000 is 12-
hours
>> earlier than the timestamp of that file indicates. Here's a log
message
>> from PB2NC listing out the "center time" for that file:
>> DEBUG 1: Processing Bufr File: prepda.2017081000
>> DEBUG 2: Bufr Time Center: 20170809_120000
>>
>> Perhaps there's a problem in the naming convention for that
"prepda"
>> file... or perhaps there's a good reason for the 12-hour offset...
or
>> perhaps there's some problem in the MET code and we're not reading
data
>> from that file correctly?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> John
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:37 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
>> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
>> >
>> > OK, thanks! So this is included in the latest MET release. I
think
>> there
>> > will definitely be other questions, if I want to be able to
verify each
>> > hourly forecast of ozone with the observation. The DHR tells us
which
>> hour
>> > that we are looking for to verify.
>> >
>> > Perry
>> >
>> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:25 AM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
>> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi Perry,
>> > >
>> > > We just posted the met-7.0 release yesterday. Julie Prestopnik
is
>> > actually
>> > > out at NCEP today, and she'll be the one to install it on
WCOSS. So
>> I'll
>> > > let her chime in to let us know when she's able to do that.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > John
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:27 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
>> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
>
>> > > >
>> > > > Hi, John,
>> > > >
>> > > > I am able to start working on this today. Is this available
for
>> > testing
>> > > > now?
>> > > >
>> > > > Also I'm not entirely sure what you mean in that the obs and
the
>> model
>> > > > don't match up well in time? In the example I sent you, you
have a
>> set
>> > > of
>> > > > observations and all the forecast files that verify at that
>> particular
>> > > > time. Both the model and observed bufr file have 1-hourly
fields
>> > (hourly
>> > > > fields of 1-hr and hourly fields of 8-hr ozone - kind of hard
to
>> > imagine
>> > > > that, but they are just values). So we will also need a way
to
>> match
>> > up
>> > > > the observed field with the modeled field at the
corresponding time.
>> > > (For
>> > > > example, matching the 3-hr forecast from the 12Z model run
with the
>> 15Z
>> > > > observed field.)
>> > > >
>> > > > I think this is best achieved with a different execution of
>> point_stat
>> > > for
>> > > > each individual hour, because that's how I do gridtobs
anyway.
>> > > >
>> > > > What are your thoughts on the above?
>> > > >
>> > > > Thanks!
>> > > >
>> > > > Perry
>> > > >
>> > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:32 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
>> > > > met_help at ucar.edu
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Hi Perry,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Howard Soh updated the logic in the PB2NC to handle the 1
and
>> 8-hour
>> > > COPO
>> > > > > observations in the way we discussed. I wanted to let you
know
>> that
>> > I
>> > > > > tested it this afternoon and got some good results. The
sample
>> > > fcst/obs
>> > > > > data you sent doesn't line up well in time, so I just set a
very
>> > large
>> > > > > matching time window in Point-Stat.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Here's the relevant pieces of the Point-Stat config file:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > fcst = {
>> > > > > field = [
>> > > > > { name = "OZCON"; level = "A01"; },
>> > > > > { name = "OZCON"; level = "A08"; }
>> > > > > ];
>> > > > > }
>> > > > > obs = {
>> > > > > message_type = [ "AIRNOW" ];
>> > > > > convert(x) = x*10^9;
>> > > > > field = [
>> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level = "A01"; },
>> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level = "A08"; }
>> > > > > ];
>> > > > > }
>> > > > >
>> > > > > And I'm just *guessing* at that conversion factor. The
resulting
>> > > numbers
>> > > > > look about right, but its up to you to confirm. Using the
sample
>> > data
>> > > > you
>> > > > > sent me, this results in a mean error value of 12.64 and
15.48 for
>> > the
>> > > 1
>> > > > > and 8-hour accums, respectively. But the fcst/obs data are
>> actually
>> > > > offset
>> > > > > by 12 hours so these numbers don't mean much, other than
>> > demonstrating
>> > > > > there isn't a huge order of magnitude difference.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > > John
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:06 PM, John Halley Gotway <
>> johnhg at ucar.edu
>> > >
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Perry,
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I think I prefer option 2 as well. I'll ask Howard Soh,
one of
>> the
>> > > > > > developers here, to add specific logic for the AIRNOW
message
>> type,
>> > > > > where...
>> > > > > > - level = absolute value of TPHR
>> > > > > > - qc flag = QCIND
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > John
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:00 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov
via RT
>> <
>> > > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
>> >
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> Hi, John,
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> What would be easier in comparing to the model output,
do you
>> > think?
>> > > > I
>> > > > > >> think that having it as some sort of "accumulation
variable"
>> (the
>> > > 2nd
>> > > > > >> option) would work.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> In the model, though, they are not listed as either 1 or
8 hr
>> > > > > >> accumulations/averages. They are listed as either, for
example
>> > for
>> > > > the
>> > > > > 24
>> > > > > >> hr forecast, either "23-24 hr ave fcst" or "16-24 hr ave
fcst".
>> > > Would
>> > > > > be
>> > > > > >> easier if it said "1 hr ave fcst" or "8 hr ave fcst",
but
>> again,
>> > > > that's
>> > > > > >> not
>> > > > > >> what we got. So I'm guessing that might make it a
little more
>> > > > > challenging
>> > > > > >> for the model to script up?
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> Perry
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:50 PM, John Halley Gotway via
RT <
>> > > > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> > Perry,
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > I wanted to check how point observations of precip are
>> stored in
>> > > > > >> PrepBUFR
>> > > > > >> > so I ran PB2NC on an old NDAS file using the -index
option.
>> > > Here's
>> > > > > >> what I
>> > > > > >> > found:
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP06: TOTAL PRECIPITATION PAST 6
>> > > > > >> > HOURS types: ADPSFC
>> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP24: TOTAL PRECIPITATION PAST 24
>> > > > > >> > HOURS types: ADPSFC
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > So basically, the accumulation interval exists in the
>> > observation
>> > > > > >> variable
>> > > > > >> > name. Following that paradigm, if the AIRNOW
observations
>> were
>> > > > stored
>> > > > > >> > using COPO01 and COPO08, then MET would already be
able to
>> > handle
>> > > > them
>> > > > > >> > already. But I suppose we're likely stuck with what
we've
>> got.
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > I can see 2 ways we could handle this for processing
AIRNOW
>> > > message
>> > > > > >> > types...
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > Option 1: Follow the precip example and modify the
>> observation
>> > > > > variable
>> > > > > >> > names by appending the TPHR value. Instead of COPO,
we'd
>> have
>> > > > > >> observations
>> > > > > >> > named COPO01 and COPO08. And if we ever see TPHR =
-24,
>> that'd
>> > > > > produce
>> > > > > >> a
>> > > > > >> > COPO24 variable name.
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > Option 2: We could keep the COPO variable name
unchanged, and
>> > > > instead
>> > > > > >> set
>> > > > > >> > the "level" value for these observations to indicate
the
>> > > > accumulation
>> > > > > >> > interval. If you look at the ascii2nc usage
statement,
>> you'll
>> > see
>> > > > the
>> > > > > >> > following:
>> > > > > >> > "Level" is the pressure level (hPa) or accumulation
>> interval
>> > > > > >> (HH[MMSS]).
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > So we could use the value of TPHR to define the level
as an
>> > > > > >> "accumulation"
>> > > > > >> > interval.
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > Either option could be made to work in MET. Does one
make
>> more
>> > > > sense
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > >> > you than the other?
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > While we're doing this, I assume we should also using
the
>> QCIND
>> > > > value
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > >> > populate the obs_qty (i.e. quality control) setting?
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > Thanks,
>> > > > > >> > John
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:34 PM, John Halley Gotway <
>> > > > johnhg at ucar.edu>
>> > > > > >> > wrote:
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > > Perry,
>> > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > >> > > Until users dive into the details, we won't know
about
>> these
>> > > sorts
>> > > > > of
>> > > > > >> -1
>> > > > > >> > > vs -8 issues. But once we identify the
requirements, we
>> can
>> > > > update
>> > > > > >> the
>> > > > > >> > > software to handle them.
>> > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > >> > > So please keep the feedback coming.
>> > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > >> > > Thanks,
>> > > > > >> > > John
>> > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:31 PM,
perry.shafran at noaa.gov
>> via
>> > RT
>> > > <
>> > > > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > >> > >>
>> > > > > >> > >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
>> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
>> > > >
>> > > > > >> > >>
>> > > > > >> > >> Hi, John,
>> > > > > >> > >>
>> > > > > >> > >> OK, thanks! I thought the latest version of MET
that we
>> were
>> > > > using
>> > > > > >> was
>> > > > > >> > >> configured for the air quality applications?
>> > > > > >> > >>
>> > > > > >> > >> Perry
>> > > > > >> > >>
>> > > > > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:26 PM, John Halley Gotway
via
>> RT <
>> > > > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > > > > >> > >>
>> > > > > >> > >> > Perry,
>> > > > > >> > >> >
>> > > > > >> > >> > I just grabbed them and ran the forecast data
through
>> the
>> > > > > >> > >> plot_data_plane
>> > > > > >> > >> > utility. Looks like specifying the level as an
>> > accumulation
>> > > > type
>> > > > > >> does
>> > > > > >> > >> the
>> > > > > >> > >> > trick:
>> > > > > >> > >> >
>> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_data_plane
AWIP3D18.tm00
>> > > > > OZCON_1hr.ps
>> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A1";'
>> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_data_plane
AWIP3D18.tm00
>> > > > > OZCON_8hr.ps
>> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A8";'
>> > > > > >> > >> >
>> > > > > >> > >> > The resulting images are attached.
>> > > > > >> > >> >
>> > > > > >> > >> > Next, I ran pb2nc using the -index option to see
a
>> > > description
>> > > > of
>> > > > > >> the
>> > > > > >> > >> > prepda contents:
>> > > > > >> > >> >
>> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/pb2nc prepda.2017081000
>> <(201)%20708-1000>
>> > > > <(201)%20708-1000>
>> > > > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
>> > > > > >> > >> > prepda.2017081000.nc /usr/local/met-
6.1/share/met/
>> > > > > >> > >> > config/PB2NCConfig_default
>> > > > > >> > >> > -index -log pb2nc_index.log
>> > > > > >> > >> >
>> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Header variables:
>> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SID: STATION IDENTIFICATION
>> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: XOB: LONGITUDE
>> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: YOB: LATITUDE
>> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: DHR: OBSERVATION TIME MINUS
CYCLE TIME
>> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ELV:
>> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYP: PREPBUFR REPORT TYPE
>> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: T29: DATA DUMP REPORT TYPE
>> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ITP:
>> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
>> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Observation variables:
>> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: COPO: CONCENTRATION OF
>> > > > > >> > >> > POLLUTANT types:
AIRNOW
>> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYPO: TYPE OF POLLUTANT
>> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: CAT: PREPBUFR DATA LEVEL
CATEGORY
>> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: PROCN: PROCESS NUMBER FOR THIS MPI
RUN
>> > > (OBTAINED
>> > > > > >> FROM
>> > > > > >> > >> > SCRIPT)
>> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SQN: REPORT SEQUENCE NUMBER
>> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: QCIND: QUALITY CONTROL INDICATION
OF
>> > FOLLOWING
>> > > > > >> > >> > DATA types: AIRNOW
>> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TSIG: TIME SIGNIFICANCE
>> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: RPT: REPORTED OBSERVATION TIME
>> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TPHR: TIME PERIOD OR DISPLACEMENT
>> > > > > >> > >> >
>> > > > > >> > >> > I see the COPO and TPHR observations listed.
We'll
>> need to
>> > > > > update
>> > > > > >> the
>> > > > > >> > >> > PB2NC code to handle the logic you've described.
>> > > > > >> > >> >
>> > > > > >> > >> > One option for specifying the 1 vs 8 hour
difference
>> would
>> > be
>> > > > to
>> > > > > >> mimic
>> > > > > >> > >> how
>> > > > > >> > >> > different precip accumulation intervals are
stored for
>> > > gauges.
>> > > > > >> I'll
>> > > > > >> > >> look
>> > > > > >> > >> > more into how we might do that.
>> > > > > >> > >> >
>> > > > > >> > >> > Thanks,
>> > > > > >> > >> > John
>> > > > > >> > >> >
>> > > > > >> > >> >
>> > > > > >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:17 PM,
>> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
>> > via
>> > > > RT
>> > > > > <
>> > > > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > > > > >> > >> >
>> > > > > >> > >> > >
>> > > > > >> > >> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
>> > > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >> > >> > >
>> > > > > >> > >> > > Hi, John,
>> > > > > >> > >> > >
>> > > > > >> > >> > > I was just wondering if you have found and
received
>> these
>> > > > > files.
>> > > > > >> > >> > >
>> > > > > >> > >> > > Thanks!
>> > > > > >> > >> > >
>> > > > > >> > >> > > Perry
>> > > > > >> > >> > >
>> > > > > >> > >> > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Perry Shafran
- NOAA
>> > > > > Affiliate
>> > > > > >> <
>> > > > > >> > >> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
>> > > > > >> > >> > >
>> > > > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >
>> > > > > >> > >> > > > I just transferred some model files and an ob
file
>> here
>> > > on
>> > > > > >> Theia.
>> > > > > >> > >> All
>> > > > > >> > >> > > > these model files verify at the ob time here.
Have
>> a
>> > > look:
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >
/scratch4/NCEPDEV/meso/save/Perry.Shafran/for_john
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >
>> > > > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >
>> > > > > >> > >> > > > Perry
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >
>> > > > > >> > >> > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 6:55 PM, John Halley
Gotway
>> via
>> > > RT
>> > > > <
>> > > > > >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Hi Perry,
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Can you please point me to a model output
file
>> > > containing
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > >> > OZCON
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> fields? Presumably, these are in GRIB1 or 2
>> format,
>> > and
>> > > > > >> > hopefully,
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> there's
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> some flag in the header that will enable us
to
>> > > distinguish
>> > > > > >> > between
>> > > > > >> > >> the
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> GRIB
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> records containing 1 and 8 hour averages.
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> As for the point observations, I suspect
that we'll
>> > need
>> > > > to
>> > > > > >> add
>> > > > > >> > >> logic
>> > > > > >> > >> > to
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> PB2NC to distinguish between the 1 and 8
hour COPO
>> > > > > >> > concentrations.
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Perhaps
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> we could update PB2NC to use the TPHR values
to
>> > renamed
>> > > > COPO
>> > > > > >> to
>> > > > > >> > >> COPO_1
>> > > > > >> > >> > > and
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> COPO_8?
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Are these COPO point observations present in
NDAS
>> or
>> > > GDAS
>> > > > > >> > PrepBUFR
>> > > > > >> > >> > > files?
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Thanks,
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> John
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:40 PM,
>> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
>> > > > via
>> > > > > >> RT <
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Tue Feb 20 13:40:01 2018: Request 84134
was acted
>> > > upon.
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Transaction: Ticket created by
>> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Queue: met_help
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Subject: verifying ozone
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Owner: Nobody
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Requestors: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Status: new
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Ticket <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
>> > > > > >> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Hi, everyone,
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I am helping the AQM group verify ozone
and I
>> need
>> > > some
>> > > > > >> > >> assistance
>> > > > > >> > >> > in
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> using
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > PB2NC (and then later point_stat, but
let's start
>> > with
>> > > > > >> > PB2NC). I
>> > > > > >> > >> > need
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> to
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > be able to read in two quantities from the
>> prepbufr
>> > > file
>> > > > > and
>> > > > > >> > then
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> combine
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > that to be able to compare to the two
model
>> items.
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the bufr file, the variables at hand
are COPO
>> > (the
>> > > > > ozone
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> concentration),
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > and also TPHR. TPHR is either -1 or -8
>> depending on
>> > > > > whether
>> > > > > >> > the
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> observed
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > ozone is a 1-hr or 8-hr average.
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In essence, we have two entities here
depending
>> on
>> > the
>> > > > > >> value of
>> > > > > >> > >> > TPHR:
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> the
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > 1-hr average ozone and the 8-hr average
ozone.
>> But
>> > > they
>> > > > > >> have
>> > > > > >> > the
>> > > > > >> > >> > same
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > value.
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the model we also have two variables.
Both
>> are
>> > > > called
>> > > > > >> > OZCON,
>> > > > > >> > >> but
>> > > > > >> > >> > > the
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > first one in the file is a 1-hr average
and the
>> > second
>> > > > one
>> > > > > >> is
>> > > > > >> > the
>> > > > > >> > >> > 8-hr
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average.
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > The trick here is verifying 1-hr average
with
>> 1-hr
>> > > > > average,
>> > > > > >> and
>> > > > > >> > >> 8-hr
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average with 8-hr average. I think there
is a
>> > > > > >> multiplication
>> > > > > >> > >> factor
>> > > > > >> > >> > > in
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > there somewhere, as the obs are in units
of
>> > mole/mole,
>> > > > > while
>> > > > > >> > the
>> > > > > >> > >> > model
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> is
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > in parts per billion (ppb).
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I don't know if you've spoken with the AQM
team
>> on
>> > how
>> > > > > >> exactly
>> > > > > >> > >> to do
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> this,
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > but I was hoping to help them with this.
If you
>> can
>> > > > > advise
>> > > > > >> on
>> > > > > >> > >> how
>> > > > > >> > >> > to
>> > > > > >> > >> > > do
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > this, that would be great!
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Thanks!
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Perry
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
>> > > > > >> > >> > > >
>> > > > > >> > >> > >
>> > > > > >> > >> > >
>> > > > > >> > >> >
>> > > > > >> > >> >
>> > > > > >> > >>
>> > > > > >> > >>
>> > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: verifying ozone
From: John Halley Gotway
Time: Wed Mar 07 13:48:41 2018
Perry,
Yes, I received it. Thanks for the info. I wrote up a development
ticket
in JiRA to handle this and Howard Soh is taking a look at it. I'll
let you
know when we have an update for you.
Thanks,
John
On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:31 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
>
> Hi, John,
>
> I was just wondering if you got this message regarding the DHR in
the ozone
> airnow file. I hadn't received any acknowledgement of it. I think
that if
> we are going to read this data correctly for verification, we'll
have to be
> aware of this and use the DHR to add DHR to the file's timestamp in
order
> to get the right ob at the right time.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Perry
>
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Perry Shafran - NOAA Affiliate <
> perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
>
> > Hi, John,
> >
> > For ozone (and for PM likely as well), the DHR will tell you the
time of
> > the observation. The DHR ranges from -11 to 12 in each file, so
if you
> > have an observation with DHR of -10, for example, that
observations is
> > valid at 02Z. I guess I should have done better to note this to
you
> > previously, but you will need this additional information in order
to get
> > the valid time of the observation. My apologies for not realizing
this
> > sooner (like before 7.0 was released).
> >
> > The 00Z valid time (as in your example), I just realized, is a
special
> > case. Since the DHR ranges from -11 to 12, that means that the
valid
> times
> > in the file range from 01Z to 00Z the next day. That's the reason
for
> this
> > - it is indeed the 2017080912 <(201)%20708-0912> file but this
particular
> > valid time is 2017081000 <(201)%20708-1000> because DHR is 12 in
this
> > case. So that makes it extra special fun for verifying for the
00Z valid
> > time, since we will have to go to the previous day's obs file to
verify
> > that. Every other hour of the day, you won't see this mismatch.
> >
> > Perry
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:59 AM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> Perry,
> >>
> >> Yes, I see that all the AWIP* GRIB2 files you sent me are valid
at
> >> 2017081000.
> >>
> >> However, the point observations in the prepda.2017081000 are
valid at
> >> 20170809_120000. Or at least that's what the output of PB2NC
tells me!
> >>
> >> The timestamps of the data contained in prepda.2017081000 is 12-
hours
> >> earlier than the timestamp of that file indicates. Here's a log
message
> >> from PB2NC listing out the "center time" for that file:
> >> DEBUG 1: Processing Bufr File: prepda.2017081000
> >> DEBUG 2: Bufr Time Center: 20170809_120000
> >>
> >> Perhaps there's a problem in the naming convention for that
"prepda"
> >> file... or perhaps there's a good reason for the 12-hour
offset... or
> >> perhaps there's some problem in the MET code and we're not
reading data
> >> from that file correctly?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> John
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:37 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
> >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> >> >
> >> > OK, thanks! So this is included in the latest MET release. I
think
> >> there
> >> > will definitely be other questions, if I want to be able to
verify
> each
> >> > hourly forecast of ozone with the observation. The DHR tells
us which
> >> hour
> >> > that we are looking for to verify.
> >> >
> >> > Perry
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:25 AM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hi Perry,
> >> > >
> >> > > We just posted the met-7.0 release yesterday. Julie
Prestopnik is
> >> > actually
> >> > > out at NCEP today, and she'll be the one to install it on
WCOSS. So
> >> I'll
> >> > > let her chime in to let us know when she's able to do that.
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks,
> >> > > John
> >> > >
> >> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:27 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT
<
> >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Hi, John,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I am able to start working on this today. Is this
available for
> >> > testing
> >> > > > now?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Also I'm not entirely sure what you mean in that the obs
and the
> >> model
> >> > > > don't match up well in time? In the example I sent you,
you have
> a
> >> set
> >> > > of
> >> > > > observations and all the forecast files that verify at that
> >> particular
> >> > > > time. Both the model and observed bufr file have 1-hourly
fields
> >> > (hourly
> >> > > > fields of 1-hr and hourly fields of 8-hr ozone - kind of
hard to
> >> > imagine
> >> > > > that, but they are just values). So we will also need a
way to
> >> match
> >> > up
> >> > > > the observed field with the modeled field at the
corresponding
> time.
> >> > > (For
> >> > > > example, matching the 3-hr forecast from the 12Z model run
with
> the
> >> 15Z
> >> > > > observed field.)
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I think this is best achieved with a different execution of
> >> point_stat
> >> > > for
> >> > > > each individual hour, because that's how I do gridtobs
anyway.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > What are your thoughts on the above?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Thanks!
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Perry
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:32 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Hi Perry,
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Howard Soh updated the logic in the PB2NC to handle the 1
and
> >> 8-hour
> >> > > COPO
> >> > > > > observations in the way we discussed. I wanted to let
you know
> >> that
> >> > I
> >> > > > > tested it this afternoon and got some good results. The
sample
> >> > > fcst/obs
> >> > > > > data you sent doesn't line up well in time, so I just set
a very
> >> > large
> >> > > > > matching time window in Point-Stat.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Here's the relevant pieces of the Point-Stat config file:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > fcst = {
> >> > > > > field = [
> >> > > > > { name = "OZCON"; level = "A01"; },
> >> > > > > { name = "OZCON"; level = "A08"; }
> >> > > > > ];
> >> > > > > }
> >> > > > > obs = {
> >> > > > > message_type = [ "AIRNOW" ];
> >> > > > > convert(x) = x*10^9;
> >> > > > > field = [
> >> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level = "A01"; },
> >> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level = "A08"; }
> >> > > > > ];
> >> > > > > }
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > And I'm just *guessing* at that conversion factor. The
> resulting
> >> > > numbers
> >> > > > > look about right, but its up to you to confirm. Using
the
> sample
> >> > data
> >> > > > you
> >> > > > > sent me, this results in a mean error value of 12.64 and
15.48
> for
> >> > the
> >> > > 1
> >> > > > > and 8-hour accums, respectively. But the fcst/obs data
are
> >> actually
> >> > > > offset
> >> > > > > by 12 hours so these numbers don't mean much, other than
> >> > demonstrating
> >> > > > > there isn't a huge order of magnitude difference.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Thanks,
> >> > > > > John
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:06 PM, John Halley Gotway <
> >> johnhg at ucar.edu
> >> > >
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > Perry,
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > I think I prefer option 2 as well. I'll ask Howard
Soh, one
> of
> >> the
> >> > > > > > developers here, to add specific logic for the AIRNOW
message
> >> type,
> >> > > > > where...
> >> > > > > > - level = absolute value of TPHR
> >> > > > > > - qc flag = QCIND
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > John
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:00 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov
via
> RT
> >> <
> >> > > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> >> >
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> Hi, John,
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> What would be easier in comparing to the model output,
do you
> >> > think?
> >> > > > I
> >> > > > > >> think that having it as some sort of "accumulation
variable"
> >> (the
> >> > > 2nd
> >> > > > > >> option) would work.
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> In the model, though, they are not listed as either 1
or 8 hr
> >> > > > > >> accumulations/averages. They are listed as either,
for
> example
> >> > for
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > 24
> >> > > > > >> hr forecast, either "23-24 hr ave fcst" or "16-24 hr
ave
> fcst".
> >> > > Would
> >> > > > > be
> >> > > > > >> easier if it said "1 hr ave fcst" or "8 hr ave fcst",
but
> >> again,
> >> > > > that's
> >> > > > > >> not
> >> > > > > >> what we got. So I'm guessing that might make it a
little
> more
> >> > > > > challenging
> >> > > > > >> for the model to script up?
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> Perry
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:50 PM, John Halley Gotway
via RT <
> >> > > > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> > Perry,
> >> > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > >> > I wanted to check how point observations of precip
are
> >> stored in
> >> > > > > >> PrepBUFR
> >> > > > > >> > so I ran PB2NC on an old NDAS file using the -index
option.
> >> > > Here's
> >> > > > > >> what I
> >> > > > > >> > found:
> >> > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP06: TOTAL PRECIPITATION PAST 6
> >> > > > > >> > HOURS types: ADPSFC
> >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP24: TOTAL PRECIPITATION PAST 24
> >> > > > > >> > HOURS types: ADPSFC
> >> > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > >> > So basically, the accumulation interval exists in
the
> >> > observation
> >> > > > > >> variable
> >> > > > > >> > name. Following that paradigm, if the AIRNOW
observations
> >> were
> >> > > > stored
> >> > > > > >> > using COPO01 and COPO08, then MET would already be
able to
> >> > handle
> >> > > > them
> >> > > > > >> > already. But I suppose we're likely stuck with what
we've
> >> got.
> >> > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > >> > I can see 2 ways we could handle this for processing
AIRNOW
> >> > > message
> >> > > > > >> > types...
> >> > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > >> > Option 1: Follow the precip example and modify the
> >> observation
> >> > > > > variable
> >> > > > > >> > names by appending the TPHR value. Instead of COPO,
we'd
> >> have
> >> > > > > >> observations
> >> > > > > >> > named COPO01 and COPO08. And if we ever see TPHR =
-24,
> >> that'd
> >> > > > > produce
> >> > > > > >> a
> >> > > > > >> > COPO24 variable name.
> >> > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > >> > Option 2: We could keep the COPO variable name
unchanged,
> and
> >> > > > instead
> >> > > > > >> set
> >> > > > > >> > the "level" value for these observations to indicate
the
> >> > > > accumulation
> >> > > > > >> > interval. If you look at the ascii2nc usage
statement,
> >> you'll
> >> > see
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > >> > following:
> >> > > > > >> > "Level" is the pressure level (hPa) or
accumulation
> >> interval
> >> > > > > >> (HH[MMSS]).
> >> > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > >> > So we could use the value of TPHR to define the
level as an
> >> > > > > >> "accumulation"
> >> > > > > >> > interval.
> >> > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > >> > Either option could be made to work in MET. Does
one make
> >> more
> >> > > > sense
> >> > > > > to
> >> > > > > >> > you than the other?
> >> > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > >> > While we're doing this, I assume we should also
using the
> >> QCIND
> >> > > > value
> >> > > > > to
> >> > > > > >> > populate the obs_qty (i.e. quality control) setting?
> >> > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > >> > Thanks,
> >> > > > > >> > John
> >> > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:34 PM, John Halley Gotway
<
> >> > > > johnhg at ucar.edu>
> >> > > > > >> > wrote:
> >> > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > >> > > Perry,
> >> > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > >> > > Until users dive into the details, we won't know
about
> >> these
> >> > > sorts
> >> > > > > of
> >> > > > > >> -1
> >> > > > > >> > > vs -8 issues. But once we identify the
requirements, we
> >> can
> >> > > > update
> >> > > > > >> the
> >> > > > > >> > > software to handle them.
> >> > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > >> > > So please keep the feedback coming.
> >> > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > >> > > Thanks,
> >> > > > > >> > > John
> >> > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:31 PM,
perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> >> via
> >> > RT
> >> > > <
> >> > > > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > >> > >>
> >> > > > > >> > >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > >> > >>
> >> > > > > >> > >> Hi, John,
> >> > > > > >> > >>
> >> > > > > >> > >> OK, thanks! I thought the latest version of MET
that we
> >> were
> >> > > > using
> >> > > > > >> was
> >> > > > > >> > >> configured for the air quality applications?
> >> > > > > >> > >>
> >> > > > > >> > >> Perry
> >> > > > > >> > >>
> >> > > > > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:26 PM, John Halley
Gotway via
> >> RT <
> >> > > > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> > > > > >> > >>
> >> > > > > >> > >> > Perry,
> >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > > > > >> > >> > I just grabbed them and ran the forecast data
through
> >> the
> >> > > > > >> > >> plot_data_plane
> >> > > > > >> > >> > utility. Looks like specifying the level as an
> >> > accumulation
> >> > > > type
> >> > > > > >> does
> >> > > > > >> > >> the
> >> > > > > >> > >> > trick:
> >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_data_plane
AWIP3D18.tm00
> >> > > > > OZCON_1hr.ps
> >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A1";'
> >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_data_plane
AWIP3D18.tm00
> >> > > > > OZCON_8hr.ps
> >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A8";'
> >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > > > > >> > >> > The resulting images are attached.
> >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > > > > >> > >> > Next, I ran pb2nc using the -index option to
see a
> >> > > description
> >> > > > of
> >> > > > > >> the
> >> > > > > >> > >> > prepda contents:
> >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/pb2nc prepda.2017081000
> >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> >> > > > <(201)%20708-1000>
> >> > > > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> >> > > > > >> > >> > prepda.2017081000.nc /usr/local/met-
6.1/share/met/
> >> > > > > >> > >> > config/PB2NCConfig_default
> >> > > > > >> > >> > -index -log pb2nc_index.log
> >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Header variables:
> >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SID: STATION IDENTIFICATION
> >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: XOB: LONGITUDE
> >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: YOB: LATITUDE
> >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: DHR: OBSERVATION TIME MINUS
CYCLE
> TIME
> >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ELV:
> >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYP: PREPBUFR REPORT TYPE
> >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: T29: DATA DUMP REPORT TYPE
> >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ITP:
> >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
> >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Observation variables:
> >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: COPO: CONCENTRATION OF
> >> > > > > >> > >> > POLLUTANT types:
AIRNOW
> >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYPO: TYPE OF POLLUTANT
> >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: CAT: PREPBUFR DATA LEVEL
CATEGORY
> >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: PROCN: PROCESS NUMBER FOR THIS
MPI RUN
> >> > > (OBTAINED
> >> > > > > >> FROM
> >> > > > > >> > >> > SCRIPT)
> >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SQN: REPORT SEQUENCE NUMBER
> >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: QCIND: QUALITY CONTROL
INDICATION OF
> >> > FOLLOWING
> >> > > > > >> > >> > DATA types: AIRNOW
> >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TSIG: TIME SIGNIFICANCE
> >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: RPT: REPORTED OBSERVATION TIME
> >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TPHR: TIME PERIOD OR
DISPLACEMENT
> >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > > > > >> > >> > I see the COPO and TPHR observations listed.
We'll
> >> need to
> >> > > > > update
> >> > > > > >> the
> >> > > > > >> > >> > PB2NC code to handle the logic you've
described.
> >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > > > > >> > >> > One option for specifying the 1 vs 8 hour
difference
> >> would
> >> > be
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > >> mimic
> >> > > > > >> > >> how
> >> > > > > >> > >> > different precip accumulation intervals are
stored for
> >> > > gauges.
> >> > > > > >> I'll
> >> > > > > >> > >> look
> >> > > > > >> > >> > more into how we might do that.
> >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > > > > >> > >> > Thanks,
> >> > > > > >> > >> > John
> >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > > > > >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:17 PM,
> >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> >> > via
> >> > > > RT
> >> > > > > <
> >> > > > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> >> > > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > Hi, John,
> >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > I was just wondering if you have found and
received
> >> these
> >> > > > > files.
> >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > Thanks!
> >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > Perry
> >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Perry
Shafran -
> NOAA
> >> > > > > Affiliate
> >> > > > > >> <
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > > I just transferred some model files and an
ob file
> >> here
> >> > > on
> >> > > > > >> Theia.
> >> > > > > >> > >> All
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > > these model files verify at the ob time
here.
> Have
> >> a
> >> > > look:
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > > /scratch4/NCEPDEV/meso/save/
> Perry.Shafran/for_john
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Perry
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 6:55 PM, John
Halley
> Gotway
> >> via
> >> > > RT
> >> > > > <
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Hi Perry,
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Can you please point me to a model output
file
> >> > > containing
> >> > > > > the
> >> > > > > >> > OZCON
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> fields? Presumably, these are in GRIB1 or
2
> >> format,
> >> > and
> >> > > > > >> > hopefully,
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> there's
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> some flag in the header that will enable
us to
> >> > > distinguish
> >> > > > > >> > between
> >> > > > > >> > >> the
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> GRIB
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> records containing 1 and 8 hour averages.
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> As for the point observations, I suspect
that
> we'll
> >> > need
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > >> add
> >> > > > > >> > >> logic
> >> > > > > >> > >> > to
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> PB2NC to distinguish between the 1 and 8
hour
> COPO
> >> > > > > >> > concentrations.
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Perhaps
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> we could update PB2NC to use the TPHR
values to
> >> > renamed
> >> > > > COPO
> >> > > > > >> to
> >> > > > > >> > >> COPO_1
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > and
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> COPO_8?
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Are these COPO point observations present
in NDAS
> >> or
> >> > > GDAS
> >> > > > > >> > PrepBUFR
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > files?
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Thanks,
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> John
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:40 PM,
> >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> >> > > > via
> >> > > > > >> RT <
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Tue Feb 20 13:40:01 2018: Request 84134
was
> acted
> >> > > upon.
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Transaction: Ticket created by
> >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Queue: met_help
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Subject: verifying ozone
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Owner: Nobody
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Requestors: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Status: new
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Ticket <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> >> > > > > >> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Hi, everyone,
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I am helping the AQM group verify ozone
and I
> >> need
> >> > > some
> >> > > > > >> > >> assistance
> >> > > > > >> > >> > in
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> using
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > PB2NC (and then later point_stat, but
let's
> start
> >> > with
> >> > > > > >> > PB2NC). I
> >> > > > > >> > >> > need
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> to
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > be able to read in two quantities from
the
> >> prepbufr
> >> > > file
> >> > > > > and
> >> > > > > >> > then
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> combine
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > that to be able to compare to the two
model
> >> items.
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the bufr file, the variables at hand
are
> COPO
> >> > (the
> >> > > > > ozone
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> concentration),
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > and also TPHR. TPHR is either -1 or -8
> >> depending on
> >> > > > > whether
> >> > > > > >> > the
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> observed
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > ozone is a 1-hr or 8-hr average.
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In essence, we have two entities here
depending
> >> on
> >> > the
> >> > > > > >> value of
> >> > > > > >> > >> > TPHR:
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> the
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > 1-hr average ozone and the 8-hr average
ozone.
> >> But
> >> > > they
> >> > > > > >> have
> >> > > > > >> > the
> >> > > > > >> > >> > same
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > value.
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the model we also have two variables.
Both
> >> are
> >> > > > called
> >> > > > > >> > OZCON,
> >> > > > > >> > >> but
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > the
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > first one in the file is a 1-hr average
and the
> >> > second
> >> > > > one
> >> > > > > >> is
> >> > > > > >> > the
> >> > > > > >> > >> > 8-hr
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average.
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > The trick here is verifying 1-hr average
with
> >> 1-hr
> >> > > > > average,
> >> > > > > >> and
> >> > > > > >> > >> 8-hr
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average with 8-hr average. I think
there is a
> >> > > > > >> multiplication
> >> > > > > >> > >> factor
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > in
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > there somewhere, as the obs are in units
of
> >> > mole/mole,
> >> > > > > while
> >> > > > > >> > the
> >> > > > > >> > >> > model
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> is
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > in parts per billion (ppb).
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I don't know if you've spoken with the
AQM team
> >> on
> >> > how
> >> > > > > >> exactly
> >> > > > > >> > >> to do
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> this,
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > but I was hoping to help them with this.
If
> you
> >> can
> >> > > > > advise
> >> > > > > >> on
> >> > > > > >> > >> how
> >> > > > > >> > >> > to
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > do
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > this, that would be great!
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Thanks!
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Perry
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > > > > >> > >>
> >> > > > > >> > >>
> >> > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: verifying ozone
From: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
Time: Wed Mar 07 13:50:32 2018
Hi, John,
Super, thanks! Let me know if there are any aspects of it that need
clarification.
Perry
On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:48 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT
<met_help at ucar.edu
> wrote:
> Perry,
>
> Yes, I received it. Thanks for the info. I wrote up a development
ticket
> in JiRA to handle this and Howard Soh is taking a look at it. I'll
let you
> know when we have an update for you.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:31 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> >
> > Hi, John,
> >
> > I was just wondering if you got this message regarding the DHR in
the
> ozone
> > airnow file. I hadn't received any acknowledgement of it. I
think that
> if
> > we are going to read this data correctly for verification, we'll
have to
> be
> > aware of this and use the DHR to add DHR to the file's timestamp
in order
> > to get the right ob at the right time.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Perry
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Perry Shafran - NOAA Affiliate <
> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi, John,
> > >
> > > For ozone (and for PM likely as well), the DHR will tell you the
time
> of
> > > the observation. The DHR ranges from -11 to 12 in each file, so
if you
> > > have an observation with DHR of -10, for example, that
observations is
> > > valid at 02Z. I guess I should have done better to note this to
you
> > > previously, but you will need this additional information in
order to
> get
> > > the valid time of the observation. My apologies for not
realizing this
> > > sooner (like before 7.0 was released).
> > >
> > > The 00Z valid time (as in your example), I just realized, is a
special
> > > case. Since the DHR ranges from -11 to 12, that means that the
valid
> > times
> > > in the file range from 01Z to 00Z the next day. That's the
reason for
> > this
> > > - it is indeed the 2017080912 <(201)%20708-0912> file but this
> particular
> > > valid time is 2017081000 <(201)%20708-1000> because DHR is 12 in
this
> > > case. So that makes it extra special fun for verifying for the
00Z
> valid
> > > time, since we will have to go to the previous day's obs file to
verify
> > > that. Every other hour of the day, you won't see this mismatch.
> > >
> > > Perry
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:59 AM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Perry,
> > >>
> > >> Yes, I see that all the AWIP* GRIB2 files you sent me are valid
at
> > >> 2017081000.
> > >>
> > >> However, the point observations in the prepda.2017081000 are
valid at
> > >> 20170809_120000. Or at least that's what the output of PB2NC
tells
> me!
> > >>
> > >> The timestamps of the data contained in prepda.2017081000 is
12-hours
> > >> earlier than the timestamp of that file indicates. Here's a
log
> message
> > >> from PB2NC listing out the "center time" for that file:
> > >> DEBUG 1: Processing Bufr File: prepda.2017081000
> > >> DEBUG 2: Bufr Time Center: 20170809_120000
> > >>
> > >> Perhaps there's a problem in the naming convention for that
"prepda"
> > >> file... or perhaps there's a good reason for the 12-hour
offset... or
> > >> perhaps there's some problem in the MET code and we're not
reading
> data
> > >> from that file correctly?
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> John
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:37 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
>
> > >> >
> > >> > OK, thanks! So this is included in the latest MET release. I
think
> > >> there
> > >> > will definitely be other questions, if I want to be able to
verify
> > each
> > >> > hourly forecast of ozone with the observation. The DHR tells
us
> which
> > >> hour
> > >> > that we are looking for to verify.
> > >> >
> > >> > Perry
> > >> >
> > >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:25 AM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Hi Perry,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > We just posted the met-7.0 release yesterday. Julie
Prestopnik is
> > >> > actually
> > >> > > out at NCEP today, and she'll be the one to install it on
WCOSS.
> So
> > >> I'll
> > >> > > let her chime in to let us know when she's able to do that.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Thanks,
> > >> > > John
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:27 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via
RT <
> > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > I am able to start working on this today. Is this
available for
> > >> > testing
> > >> > > > now?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Also I'm not entirely sure what you mean in that the obs
and the
> > >> model
> > >> > > > don't match up well in time? In the example I sent you,
you
> have
> > a
> > >> set
> > >> > > of
> > >> > > > observations and all the forecast files that verify at
that
> > >> particular
> > >> > > > time. Both the model and observed bufr file have 1-
hourly
> fields
> > >> > (hourly
> > >> > > > fields of 1-hr and hourly fields of 8-hr ozone - kind of
hard to
> > >> > imagine
> > >> > > > that, but they are just values). So we will also need a
way to
> > >> match
> > >> > up
> > >> > > > the observed field with the modeled field at the
corresponding
> > time.
> > >> > > (For
> > >> > > > example, matching the 3-hr forecast from the 12Z model
run with
> > the
> > >> 15Z
> > >> > > > observed field.)
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > I think this is best achieved with a different execution
of
> > >> point_stat
> > >> > > for
> > >> > > > each individual hour, because that's how I do gridtobs
anyway.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > What are your thoughts on the above?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Thanks!
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Perry
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:32 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT
<
> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu
> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > Hi Perry,
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Howard Soh updated the logic in the PB2NC to handle the
1 and
> > >> 8-hour
> > >> > > COPO
> > >> > > > > observations in the way we discussed. I wanted to let
you
> know
> > >> that
> > >> > I
> > >> > > > > tested it this afternoon and got some good results.
The
> sample
> > >> > > fcst/obs
> > >> > > > > data you sent doesn't line up well in time, so I just
set a
> very
> > >> > large
> > >> > > > > matching time window in Point-Stat.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Here's the relevant pieces of the Point-Stat config
file:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > fcst = {
> > >> > > > > field = [
> > >> > > > > { name = "OZCON"; level = "A01"; },
> > >> > > > > { name = "OZCON"; level = "A08"; }
> > >> > > > > ];
> > >> > > > > }
> > >> > > > > obs = {
> > >> > > > > message_type = [ "AIRNOW" ];
> > >> > > > > convert(x) = x*10^9;
> > >> > > > > field = [
> > >> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level = "A01"; },
> > >> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level = "A08"; }
> > >> > > > > ];
> > >> > > > > }
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > And I'm just *guessing* at that conversion factor. The
> > resulting
> > >> > > numbers
> > >> > > > > look about right, but its up to you to confirm. Using
the
> > sample
> > >> > data
> > >> > > > you
> > >> > > > > sent me, this results in a mean error value of 12.64
and 15.48
> > for
> > >> > the
> > >> > > 1
> > >> > > > > and 8-hour accums, respectively. But the fcst/obs data
are
> > >> actually
> > >> > > > offset
> > >> > > > > by 12 hours so these numbers don't mean much, other
than
> > >> > demonstrating
> > >> > > > > there isn't a huge order of magnitude difference.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Thanks,
> > >> > > > > John
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:06 PM, John Halley Gotway <
> > >> johnhg at ucar.edu
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Perry,
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > I think I prefer option 2 as well. I'll ask Howard
Soh, one
> > of
> > >> the
> > >> > > > > > developers here, to add specific logic for the AIRNOW
> message
> > >> type,
> > >> > > > > where...
> > >> > > > > > - level = absolute value of TPHR
> > >> > > > > > - qc flag = QCIND
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > John
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:00 PM,
perry.shafran at noaa.gov via
> > RT
> > >> <
> > >> > > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > >> >
> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >> Hi, John,
> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >> What would be easier in comparing to the model
output, do
> you
> > >> > think?
> > >> > > > I
> > >> > > > > >> think that having it as some sort of "accumulation
> variable"
> > >> (the
> > >> > > 2nd
> > >> > > > > >> option) would work.
> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >> In the model, though, they are not listed as either
1 or 8
> hr
> > >> > > > > >> accumulations/averages. They are listed as either,
for
> > example
> > >> > for
> > >> > > > the
> > >> > > > > 24
> > >> > > > > >> hr forecast, either "23-24 hr ave fcst" or "16-24 hr
ave
> > fcst".
> > >> > > Would
> > >> > > > > be
> > >> > > > > >> easier if it said "1 hr ave fcst" or "8 hr ave
fcst", but
> > >> again,
> > >> > > > that's
> > >> > > > > >> not
> > >> > > > > >> what we got. So I'm guessing that might make it a
little
> > more
> > >> > > > > challenging
> > >> > > > > >> for the model to script up?
> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >> Perry
> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:50 PM, John Halley Gotway
via RT
> <
> > >> > > > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >> > Perry,
> > >> > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > >> > I wanted to check how point observations of precip
are
> > >> stored in
> > >> > > > > >> PrepBUFR
> > >> > > > > >> > so I ran PB2NC on an old NDAS file using the
-index
> option.
> > >> > > Here's
> > >> > > > > >> what I
> > >> > > > > >> > found:
> > >> > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP06: TOTAL PRECIPITATION PAST 6
> > >> > > > > >> > HOURS types: ADPSFC
> > >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP24: TOTAL PRECIPITATION PAST 24
> > >> > > > > >> > HOURS types: ADPSFC
> > >> > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > >> > So basically, the accumulation interval exists in
the
> > >> > observation
> > >> > > > > >> variable
> > >> > > > > >> > name. Following that paradigm, if the AIRNOW
> observations
> > >> were
> > >> > > > stored
> > >> > > > > >> > using COPO01 and COPO08, then MET would already be
able
> to
> > >> > handle
> > >> > > > them
> > >> > > > > >> > already. But I suppose we're likely stuck with
what
> we've
> > >> got.
> > >> > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > >> > I can see 2 ways we could handle this for
processing
> AIRNOW
> > >> > > message
> > >> > > > > >> > types...
> > >> > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > >> > Option 1: Follow the precip example and modify the
> > >> observation
> > >> > > > > variable
> > >> > > > > >> > names by appending the TPHR value. Instead of
COPO, we'd
> > >> have
> > >> > > > > >> observations
> > >> > > > > >> > named COPO01 and COPO08. And if we ever see TPHR
= -24,
> > >> that'd
> > >> > > > > produce
> > >> > > > > >> a
> > >> > > > > >> > COPO24 variable name.
> > >> > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > >> > Option 2: We could keep the COPO variable name
unchanged,
> > and
> > >> > > > instead
> > >> > > > > >> set
> > >> > > > > >> > the "level" value for these observations to
indicate the
> > >> > > > accumulation
> > >> > > > > >> > interval. If you look at the ascii2nc usage
statement,
> > >> you'll
> > >> > see
> > >> > > > the
> > >> > > > > >> > following:
> > >> > > > > >> > "Level" is the pressure level (hPa) or
accumulation
> > >> interval
> > >> > > > > >> (HH[MMSS]).
> > >> > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > >> > So we could use the value of TPHR to define the
level as
> an
> > >> > > > > >> "accumulation"
> > >> > > > > >> > interval.
> > >> > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > >> > Either option could be made to work in MET. Does
one
> make
> > >> more
> > >> > > > sense
> > >> > > > > to
> > >> > > > > >> > you than the other?
> > >> > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > >> > While we're doing this, I assume we should also
using the
> > >> QCIND
> > >> > > > value
> > >> > > > > to
> > >> > > > > >> > populate the obs_qty (i.e. quality control)
setting?
> > >> > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > >> > Thanks,
> > >> > > > > >> > John
> > >> > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:34 PM, John Halley
Gotway <
> > >> > > > johnhg at ucar.edu>
> > >> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > >> > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > >> > > Perry,
> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > >> > > > > >> > > Until users dive into the details, we won't know
about
> > >> these
> > >> > > sorts
> > >> > > > > of
> > >> > > > > >> -1
> > >> > > > > >> > > vs -8 issues. But once we identify the
requirements,
> we
> > >> can
> > >> > > > update
> > >> > > > > >> the
> > >> > > > > >> > > software to handle them.
> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > >> > > > > >> > > So please keep the feedback coming.
> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks,
> > >> > > > > >> > > John
> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > >> > > > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:31 PM,
> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > >> via
> > >> > RT
> > >> > > <
> > >> > > > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > >> > > > > >> > >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > >> > > > > >> > >> Hi, John,
> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > >> > > > > >> > >> OK, thanks! I thought the latest version of
MET that
> we
> > >> were
> > >> > > > using
> > >> > > > > >> was
> > >> > > > > >> > >> configured for the air quality applications?
> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > >> > > > > >> > >> Perry
> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > >> > > > > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:26 PM, John Halley
Gotway
> via
> > >> RT <
> > >> > > > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Perry,
> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > I just grabbed them and ran the forecast data
> through
> > >> the
> > >> > > > > >> > >> plot_data_plane
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > utility. Looks like specifying the level as
an
> > >> > accumulation
> > >> > > > type
> > >> > > > > >> does
> > >> > > > > >> > >> the
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > trick:
> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_data_plane
> AWIP3D18.tm00
> > >> > > > > OZCON_1hr.ps
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A1";'
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_data_plane
> AWIP3D18.tm00
> > >> > > > > OZCON_8hr.ps
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A8";'
> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > The resulting images are attached.
> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Next, I ran pb2nc using the -index option to
see a
> > >> > > description
> > >> > > > of
> > >> > > > > >> the
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > prepda contents:
> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/pb2nc
prepda.2017081000
> > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > >> > > > <(201)%20708-1000>
> > >> > > > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > prepda.2017081000.nc /usr/local/met-
6.1/share/met/
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > config/PB2NCConfig_default
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > -index -log pb2nc_index.log
> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Header variables:
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SID: STATION IDENTIFICATION
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: XOB: LONGITUDE
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: YOB: LATITUDE
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: DHR: OBSERVATION TIME MINUS
CYCLE
> > TIME
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ELV:
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYP: PREPBUFR REPORT TYPE
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: T29: DATA DUMP REPORT TYPE
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ITP:
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Observation variables:
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: COPO: CONCENTRATION OF
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > POLLUTANT
types:
> AIRNOW
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYPO: TYPE OF POLLUTANT
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: CAT: PREPBUFR DATA LEVEL
CATEGORY
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: PROCN: PROCESS NUMBER FOR THIS
MPI
> RUN
> > >> > > (OBTAINED
> > >> > > > > >> FROM
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > SCRIPT)
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SQN: REPORT SEQUENCE NUMBER
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: QCIND: QUALITY CONTROL
INDICATION OF
> > >> > FOLLOWING
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DATA types: AIRNOW
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TSIG: TIME SIGNIFICANCE
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: RPT: REPORTED OBSERVATION
TIME
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TPHR: TIME PERIOD OR
DISPLACEMENT
> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > I see the COPO and TPHR observations listed.
We'll
> > >> need to
> > >> > > > > update
> > >> > > > > >> the
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > PB2NC code to handle the logic you've
described.
> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > One option for specifying the 1 vs 8 hour
difference
> > >> would
> > >> > be
> > >> > > > to
> > >> > > > > >> mimic
> > >> > > > > >> > >> how
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > different precip accumulation intervals are
stored
> for
> > >> > > gauges.
> > >> > > > > >> I'll
> > >> > > > > >> > >> look
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > more into how we might do that.
> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Thanks,
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > John
> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:17 PM,
> > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > >> > via
> > >> > > > RT
> > >> > > > > <
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > >> > > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Hi, John,
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > I was just wondering if you have found and
> received
> > >> these
> > >> > > > > files.
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Thanks!
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Perry
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Perry
Shafran -
> > NOAA
> > >> > > > > Affiliate
> > >> > > > > >> <
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > I just transferred some model files and
an ob
> file
> > >> here
> > >> > > on
> > >> > > > > >> Theia.
> > >> > > > > >> > >> All
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > these model files verify at the ob time
here.
> > Have
> > >> a
> > >> > > look:
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > /scratch4/NCEPDEV/meso/save/
> > Perry.Shafran/for_john
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Perry
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 6:55 PM, John
Halley
> > Gotway
> > >> via
> > >> > > RT
> > >> > > > <
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Hi Perry,
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Can you please point me to a model
output file
> > >> > > containing
> > >> > > > > the
> > >> > > > > >> > OZCON
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> fields? Presumably, these are in GRIB1
or 2
> > >> format,
> > >> > and
> > >> > > > > >> > hopefully,
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> there's
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> some flag in the header that will enable
us to
> > >> > > distinguish
> > >> > > > > >> > between
> > >> > > > > >> > >> the
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> GRIB
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> records containing 1 and 8 hour
averages.
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> As for the point observations, I suspect
that
> > we'll
> > >> > need
> > >> > > > to
> > >> > > > > >> add
> > >> > > > > >> > >> logic
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > to
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> PB2NC to distinguish between the 1 and 8
hour
> > COPO
> > >> > > > > >> > concentrations.
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Perhaps
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> we could update PB2NC to use the TPHR
values to
> > >> > renamed
> > >> > > > COPO
> > >> > > > > >> to
> > >> > > > > >> > >> COPO_1
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > and
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> COPO_8?
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Are these COPO point observations
present in
> NDAS
> > >> or
> > >> > > GDAS
> > >> > > > > >> > PrepBUFR
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > files?
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Thanks,
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> John
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:40 PM,
> > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > >> > > > via
> > >> > > > > >> RT <
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Tue Feb 20 13:40:01 2018: Request
84134 was
> > acted
> > >> > > upon.
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Transaction: Ticket created by
> > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Queue: met_help
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Subject: verifying ozone
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Owner: Nobody
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Requestors: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Status: new
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Ticket <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Hi, everyone,
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I am helping the AQM group verify
ozone and I
> > >> need
> > >> > > some
> > >> > > > > >> > >> assistance
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > in
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> using
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > PB2NC (and then later point_stat, but
let's
> > start
> > >> > with
> > >> > > > > >> > PB2NC). I
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > need
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> to
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > be able to read in two quantities from
the
> > >> prepbufr
> > >> > > file
> > >> > > > > and
> > >> > > > > >> > then
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> combine
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > that to be able to compare to the two
model
> > >> items.
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the bufr file, the variables at
hand are
> > COPO
> > >> > (the
> > >> > > > > ozone
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> concentration),
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > and also TPHR. TPHR is either -1 or
-8
> > >> depending on
> > >> > > > > whether
> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> observed
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > ozone is a 1-hr or 8-hr average.
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In essence, we have two entities here
> depending
> > >> on
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > > >> value of
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > TPHR:
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> the
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > 1-hr average ozone and the 8-hr
average
> ozone.
> > >> But
> > >> > > they
> > >> > > > > >> have
> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > same
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > value.
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the model we also have two
variables.
> Both
> > >> are
> > >> > > > called
> > >> > > > > >> > OZCON,
> > >> > > > > >> > >> but
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > the
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > first one in the file is a 1-hr
average and
> the
> > >> > second
> > >> > > > one
> > >> > > > > >> is
> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 8-hr
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average.
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > The trick here is verifying 1-hr
average with
> > >> 1-hr
> > >> > > > > average,
> > >> > > > > >> and
> > >> > > > > >> > >> 8-hr
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average with 8-hr average. I think
there is
> a
> > >> > > > > >> multiplication
> > >> > > > > >> > >> factor
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > in
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > there somewhere, as the obs are in
units of
> > >> > mole/mole,
> > >> > > > > while
> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > model
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> is
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > in parts per billion (ppb).
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I don't know if you've spoken with the
AQM
> team
> > >> on
> > >> > how
> > >> > > > > >> exactly
> > >> > > > > >> > >> to do
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> this,
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > but I was hoping to help them with
this. If
> > you
> > >> can
> > >> > > > > advise
> > >> > > > > >> on
> > >> > > > > >> > >> how
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > to
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > do
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > this, that would be great!
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Thanks!
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Perry
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > >> > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: verifying ozone
From: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
Time: Tue Mar 13 10:57:06 2018
Hi, John,
I'm not sure I caught whether you have something for me to test or
not. I
think you were asking how to deliver these updates for ozone so I
guess you
need to deliver first before I can test anything.
Thanks!
Perry
On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Perry Shafran - NOAA Affiliate <
perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> Hi, John,
>
> Super, thanks! Let me know if there are any aspects of it that need
> clarification.
>
> Perry
>
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:48 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
>> Perry,
>>
>> Yes, I received it. Thanks for the info. I wrote up a development
ticket
>> in JiRA to handle this and Howard Soh is taking a look at it. I'll
let
>> you
>> know when we have an update for you.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> John
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:31 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
>> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
>> >
>> > Hi, John,
>> >
>> > I was just wondering if you got this message regarding the DHR in
the
>> ozone
>> > airnow file. I hadn't received any acknowledgement of it. I
think
>> that if
>> > we are going to read this data correctly for verification, we'll
have
>> to be
>> > aware of this and use the DHR to add DHR to the file's timestamp
in
>> order
>> > to get the right ob at the right time.
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>> >
>> > Perry
>> >
>> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Perry Shafran - NOAA Affiliate <
>> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi, John,
>> > >
>> > > For ozone (and for PM likely as well), the DHR will tell you
the time
>> of
>> > > the observation. The DHR ranges from -11 to 12 in each file,
so if
>> you
>> > > have an observation with DHR of -10, for example, that
observations is
>> > > valid at 02Z. I guess I should have done better to note this
to you
>> > > previously, but you will need this additional information in
order to
>> get
>> > > the valid time of the observation. My apologies for not
realizing
>> this
>> > > sooner (like before 7.0 was released).
>> > >
>> > > The 00Z valid time (as in your example), I just realized, is a
special
>> > > case. Since the DHR ranges from -11 to 12, that means that the
valid
>> > times
>> > > in the file range from 01Z to 00Z the next day. That's the
reason for
>> > this
>> > > - it is indeed the 2017080912 <(201)%20708-0912> file but this
>> particular
>> > > valid time is 2017081000 <(201)%20708-1000> because DHR is 12
in this
>> > > case. So that makes it extra special fun for verifying for the
00Z
>> valid
>> > > time, since we will have to go to the previous day's obs file
to
>> verify
>> > > that. Every other hour of the day, you won't see this
mismatch.
>> > >
>> > > Perry
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:59 AM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
>> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Perry,
>> > >>
>> > >> Yes, I see that all the AWIP* GRIB2 files you sent me are
valid at
>> > >> 2017081000.
>> > >>
>> > >> However, the point observations in the prepda.2017081000 are
valid
>> at
>> > >> 20170809_120000. Or at least that's what the output of PB2NC
tells
>> me!
>> > >>
>> > >> The timestamps of the data contained in prepda.2017081000 is
>> 12-hours
>> > >> earlier than the timestamp of that file indicates. Here's a
log
>> message
>> > >> from PB2NC listing out the "center time" for that file:
>> > >> DEBUG 1: Processing Bufr File: prepda.2017081000
>> > >> DEBUG 2: Bufr Time Center: 20170809_120000
>> > >>
>> > >> Perhaps there's a problem in the naming convention for that
"prepda"
>> > >> file... or perhaps there's a good reason for the 12-hour
offset... or
>> > >> perhaps there's some problem in the MET code and we're not
reading
>> data
>> > >> from that file correctly?
>> > >>
>> > >> Thanks,
>> > >> John
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:37 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT
<
>> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> >
>> > >> > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > OK, thanks! So this is included in the latest MET release.
I think
>> > >> there
>> > >> > will definitely be other questions, if I want to be able to
verify
>> > each
>> > >> > hourly forecast of ozone with the observation. The DHR
tells us
>> which
>> > >> hour
>> > >> > that we are looking for to verify.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Perry
>> > >> >
>> > >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:25 AM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
>> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> > > Hi Perry,
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > We just posted the met-7.0 release yesterday. Julie
Prestopnik
>> is
>> > >> > actually
>> > >> > > out at NCEP today, and she'll be the one to install it on
>> WCOSS. So
>> > >> I'll
>> > >> > > let her chime in to let us know when she's able to do
that.
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > Thanks,
>> > >> > > John
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:27 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via
RT <
>> > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
>> >
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > Hi, John,
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > I am able to start working on this today. Is this
available
>> for
>> > >> > testing
>> > >> > > > now?
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > Also I'm not entirely sure what you mean in that the obs
and
>> the
>> > >> model
>> > >> > > > don't match up well in time? In the example I sent you,
you
>> have
>> > a
>> > >> set
>> > >> > > of
>> > >> > > > observations and all the forecast files that verify at
that
>> > >> particular
>> > >> > > > time. Both the model and observed bufr file have 1-
hourly
>> fields
>> > >> > (hourly
>> > >> > > > fields of 1-hr and hourly fields of 8-hr ozone - kind of
hard
>> to
>> > >> > imagine
>> > >> > > > that, but they are just values). So we will also need a
way to
>> > >> match
>> > >> > up
>> > >> > > > the observed field with the modeled field at the
corresponding
>> > time.
>> > >> > > (For
>> > >> > > > example, matching the 3-hr forecast from the 12Z model
run with
>> > the
>> > >> 15Z
>> > >> > > > observed field.)
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > I think this is best achieved with a different execution
of
>> > >> point_stat
>> > >> > > for
>> > >> > > > each individual hour, because that's how I do gridtobs
anyway.
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > What are your thoughts on the above?
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > Thanks!
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > Perry
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:32 PM, John Halley Gotway via
RT <
>> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu
>> > >> > > > > wrote:
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > > Hi Perry,
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > Howard Soh updated the logic in the PB2NC to handle
the 1 and
>> > >> 8-hour
>> > >> > > COPO
>> > >> > > > > observations in the way we discussed. I wanted to let
you
>> know
>> > >> that
>> > >> > I
>> > >> > > > > tested it this afternoon and got some good results.
The
>> sample
>> > >> > > fcst/obs
>> > >> > > > > data you sent doesn't line up well in time, so I just
set a
>> very
>> > >> > large
>> > >> > > > > matching time window in Point-Stat.
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > Here's the relevant pieces of the Point-Stat config
file:
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > fcst = {
>> > >> > > > > field = [
>> > >> > > > > { name = "OZCON"; level = "A01"; },
>> > >> > > > > { name = "OZCON"; level = "A08"; }
>> > >> > > > > ];
>> > >> > > > > }
>> > >> > > > > obs = {
>> > >> > > > > message_type = [ "AIRNOW" ];
>> > >> > > > > convert(x) = x*10^9;
>> > >> > > > > field = [
>> > >> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level = "A01"; },
>> > >> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level = "A08"; }
>> > >> > > > > ];
>> > >> > > > > }
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > And I'm just *guessing* at that conversion factor.
The
>> > resulting
>> > >> > > numbers
>> > >> > > > > look about right, but its up to you to confirm. Using
the
>> > sample
>> > >> > data
>> > >> > > > you
>> > >> > > > > sent me, this results in a mean error value of 12.64
and
>> 15.48
>> > for
>> > >> > the
>> > >> > > 1
>> > >> > > > > and 8-hour accums, respectively. But the fcst/obs
data are
>> > >> actually
>> > >> > > > offset
>> > >> > > > > by 12 hours so these numbers don't mean much, other
than
>> > >> > demonstrating
>> > >> > > > > there isn't a huge order of magnitude difference.
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > Thanks,
>> > >> > > > > John
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:06 PM, John Halley Gotway <
>> > >> johnhg at ucar.edu
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > > > wrote:
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > Perry,
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > I think I prefer option 2 as well. I'll ask Howard
Soh,
>> one
>> > of
>> > >> the
>> > >> > > > > > developers here, to add specific logic for the
AIRNOW
>> message
>> > >> type,
>> > >> > > > > where...
>> > >> > > > > > - level = absolute value of TPHR
>> > >> > > > > > - qc flag = QCIND
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > John
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:00 PM,
perry.shafran at noaa.gov
>> via
>> > RT
>> > >> <
>> > >> > > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >>
>> > >> > > > > >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
>> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
>> > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >>
>> > >> > > > > >> Hi, John,
>> > >> > > > > >>
>> > >> > > > > >> What would be easier in comparing to the model
output, do
>> you
>> > >> > think?
>> > >> > > > I
>> > >> > > > > >> think that having it as some sort of "accumulation
>> variable"
>> > >> (the
>> > >> > > 2nd
>> > >> > > > > >> option) would work.
>> > >> > > > > >>
>> > >> > > > > >> In the model, though, they are not listed as either
1 or
>> 8 hr
>> > >> > > > > >> accumulations/averages. They are listed as either,
for
>> > example
>> > >> > for
>> > >> > > > the
>> > >> > > > > 24
>> > >> > > > > >> hr forecast, either "23-24 hr ave fcst" or "16-24
hr ave
>> > fcst".
>> > >> > > Would
>> > >> > > > > be
>> > >> > > > > >> easier if it said "1 hr ave fcst" or "8 hr ave
fcst", but
>> > >> again,
>> > >> > > > that's
>> > >> > > > > >> not
>> > >> > > > > >> what we got. So I'm guessing that might make it a
little
>> > more
>> > >> > > > > challenging
>> > >> > > > > >> for the model to script up?
>> > >> > > > > >>
>> > >> > > > > >> Perry
>> > >> > > > > >>
>> > >> > > > > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:50 PM, John Halley Gotway
via
>> RT <
>> > >> > > > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > >> > > > > >>
>> > >> > > > > >> > Perry,
>> > >> > > > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > I wanted to check how point observations of
precip are
>> > >> stored in
>> > >> > > > > >> PrepBUFR
>> > >> > > > > >> > so I ran PB2NC on an old NDAS file using the
-index
>> option.
>> > >> > > Here's
>> > >> > > > > >> what I
>> > >> > > > > >> > found:
>> > >> > > > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP06: TOTAL PRECIPITATION PAST 6
>> > >> > > > > >> > HOURS types: ADPSFC
>> > >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP24: TOTAL PRECIPITATION PAST 24
>> > >> > > > > >> > HOURS types: ADPSFC
>> > >> > > > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > So basically, the accumulation interval exists in
the
>> > >> > observation
>> > >> > > > > >> variable
>> > >> > > > > >> > name. Following that paradigm, if the AIRNOW
>> observations
>> > >> were
>> > >> > > > stored
>> > >> > > > > >> > using COPO01 and COPO08, then MET would already
be able
>> to
>> > >> > handle
>> > >> > > > them
>> > >> > > > > >> > already. But I suppose we're likely stuck with
what
>> we've
>> > >> got.
>> > >> > > > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > I can see 2 ways we could handle this for
processing
>> AIRNOW
>> > >> > > message
>> > >> > > > > >> > types...
>> > >> > > > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > Option 1: Follow the precip example and modify
the
>> > >> observation
>> > >> > > > > variable
>> > >> > > > > >> > names by appending the TPHR value. Instead of
COPO,
>> we'd
>> > >> have
>> > >> > > > > >> observations
>> > >> > > > > >> > named COPO01 and COPO08. And if we ever see TPHR
= -24,
>> > >> that'd
>> > >> > > > > produce
>> > >> > > > > >> a
>> > >> > > > > >> > COPO24 variable name.
>> > >> > > > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > Option 2: We could keep the COPO variable name
>> unchanged,
>> > and
>> > >> > > > instead
>> > >> > > > > >> set
>> > >> > > > > >> > the "level" value for these observations to
indicate the
>> > >> > > > accumulation
>> > >> > > > > >> > interval. If you look at the ascii2nc usage
statement,
>> > >> you'll
>> > >> > see
>> > >> > > > the
>> > >> > > > > >> > following:
>> > >> > > > > >> > "Level" is the pressure level (hPa) or
accumulation
>> > >> interval
>> > >> > > > > >> (HH[MMSS]).
>> > >> > > > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > So we could use the value of TPHR to define the
level
>> as an
>> > >> > > > > >> "accumulation"
>> > >> > > > > >> > interval.
>> > >> > > > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > Either option could be made to work in MET. Does
one
>> make
>> > >> more
>> > >> > > > sense
>> > >> > > > > to
>> > >> > > > > >> > you than the other?
>> > >> > > > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > While we're doing this, I assume we should also
using
>> the
>> > >> QCIND
>> > >> > > > value
>> > >> > > > > to
>> > >> > > > > >> > populate the obs_qty (i.e. quality control)
setting?
>> > >> > > > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > Thanks,
>> > >> > > > > >> > John
>> > >> > > > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:34 PM, John Halley
Gotway <
>> > >> > > > johnhg at ucar.edu>
>> > >> > > > > >> > wrote:
>> > >> > > > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > Perry,
>> > >> > > > > >> > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > Until users dive into the details, we won't
know about
>> > >> these
>> > >> > > sorts
>> > >> > > > > of
>> > >> > > > > >> -1
>> > >> > > > > >> > > vs -8 issues. But once we identify the
requirements,
>> we
>> > >> can
>> > >> > > > update
>> > >> > > > > >> the
>> > >> > > > > >> > > software to handle them.
>> > >> > > > > >> > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > So please keep the feedback coming.
>> > >> > > > > >> > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks,
>> > >> > > > > >> > > John
>> > >> > > > > >> > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:31 PM,
>> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
>> > >> via
>> > >> > RT
>> > >> > > <
>> > >> > > > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > >> > > > > >> > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >>
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
>> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >>
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> Hi, John,
>> > >> > > > > >> > >>
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> OK, thanks! I thought the latest version of
MET
>> that we
>> > >> were
>> > >> > > > using
>> > >> > > > > >> was
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> configured for the air quality applications?
>> > >> > > > > >> > >>
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> Perry
>> > >> > > > > >> > >>
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:26 PM, John Halley
Gotway
>> via
>> > >> RT <
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > >> > > > > >> > >>
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Perry,
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > I just grabbed them and ran the forecast
data
>> through
>> > >> the
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> plot_data_plane
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > utility. Looks like specifying the level as
an
>> > >> > accumulation
>> > >> > > > type
>> > >> > > > > >> does
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> the
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > trick:
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_data_plane
>> AWIP3D18.tm00
>> > >> > > > > OZCON_1hr.ps
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A1";'
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_data_plane
>> AWIP3D18.tm00
>> > >> > > > > OZCON_8hr.ps
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A8";'
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > The resulting images are attached.
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Next, I ran pb2nc using the -index option to
see a
>> > >> > > description
>> > >> > > > of
>> > >> > > > > >> the
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > prepda contents:
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/pb2nc
prepda.2017081000
>> <(201)%20708-1000>
>> > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
>> > >> > > > <(201)%20708-1000>
>> > >> > > > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > prepda.2017081000.nc /usr/local/met-
6.1/share/met/
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > config/PB2NCConfig_default
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > -index -log pb2nc_index.log
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Header variables:
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SID: STATION IDENTIFICATION
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: XOB: LONGITUDE
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: YOB: LATITUDE
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: DHR: OBSERVATION TIME MINUS
CYCLE
>> > TIME
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ELV:
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYP: PREPBUFR REPORT TYPE
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: T29: DATA DUMP REPORT TYPE
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ITP:
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Observation variables:
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: COPO: CONCENTRATION OF
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > POLLUTANT
types:
>> AIRNOW
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYPO: TYPE OF POLLUTANT
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: CAT: PREPBUFR DATA LEVEL
CATEGORY
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: PROCN: PROCESS NUMBER FOR
THIS MPI
>> RUN
>> > >> > > (OBTAINED
>> > >> > > > > >> FROM
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > SCRIPT)
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SQN: REPORT SEQUENCE NUMBER
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: QCIND: QUALITY CONTROL
INDICATION OF
>> > >> > FOLLOWING
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DATA types: AIRNOW
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TSIG: TIME SIGNIFICANCE
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: RPT: REPORTED OBSERVATION
TIME
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TPHR: TIME PERIOD OR
DISPLACEMENT
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > I see the COPO and TPHR observations listed.
We'll
>> > >> need to
>> > >> > > > > update
>> > >> > > > > >> the
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > PB2NC code to handle the logic you've
described.
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > One option for specifying the 1 vs 8 hour
>> difference
>> > >> would
>> > >> > be
>> > >> > > > to
>> > >> > > > > >> mimic
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> how
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > different precip accumulation intervals are
stored
>> for
>> > >> > > gauges.
>> > >> > > > > >> I'll
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> look
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > more into how we might do that.
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Thanks,
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > John
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:17 PM,
>> > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
>> > >> > via
>> > >> > > > RT
>> > >> > > > > <
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
>> > >> > > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Hi, John,
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > I was just wondering if you have found and
>> received
>> > >> these
>> > >> > > > > files.
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Thanks!
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Perry
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Perry
Shafran -
>> > NOAA
>> > >> > > > > Affiliate
>> > >> > > > > >> <
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > I just transferred some model files and
an ob
>> file
>> > >> here
>> > >> > > on
>> > >> > > > > >> Theia.
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> All
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > these model files verify at the ob time
here.
>> > Have
>> > >> a
>> > >> > > look:
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > /scratch4/NCEPDEV/meso/save/
>> > Perry.Shafran/for_john
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Perry
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 6:55 PM, John
Halley
>> > Gotway
>> > >> via
>> > >> > > RT
>> > >> > > > <
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Hi Perry,
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Can you please point me to a model
output file
>> > >> > > containing
>> > >> > > > > the
>> > >> > > > > >> > OZCON
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> fields? Presumably, these are in GRIB1
or 2
>> > >> format,
>> > >> > and
>> > >> > > > > >> > hopefully,
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> there's
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> some flag in the header that will
enable us to
>> > >> > > distinguish
>> > >> > > > > >> > between
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> the
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> GRIB
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> records containing 1 and 8 hour
averages.
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> As for the point observations, I
suspect that
>> > we'll
>> > >> > need
>> > >> > > > to
>> > >> > > > > >> add
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> logic
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > to
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> PB2NC to distinguish between the 1 and
8 hour
>> > COPO
>> > >> > > > > >> > concentrations.
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Perhaps
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> we could update PB2NC to use the TPHR
values
>> to
>> > >> > renamed
>> > >> > > > COPO
>> > >> > > > > >> to
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> COPO_1
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > and
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> COPO_8?
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Are these COPO point observations
present in
>> NDAS
>> > >> or
>> > >> > > GDAS
>> > >> > > > > >> > PrepBUFR
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > files?
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Thanks,
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> John
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:40 PM,
>> > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
>> > >> > > > via
>> > >> > > > > >> RT <
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Tue Feb 20 13:40:01 2018: Request
84134 was
>> > acted
>> > >> > > upon.
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Transaction: Ticket created by
>> > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Queue: met_help
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Subject: verifying ozone
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Owner: Nobody
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Requestors: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Status: new
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Ticket <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Hi, everyone,
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I am helping the AQM group verify
ozone and
>> I
>> > >> need
>> > >> > > some
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> assistance
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > in
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> using
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > PB2NC (and then later point_stat, but
let's
>> > start
>> > >> > with
>> > >> > > > > >> > PB2NC). I
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > need
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> to
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > be able to read in two quantities
from the
>> > >> prepbufr
>> > >> > > file
>> > >> > > > > and
>> > >> > > > > >> > then
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> combine
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > that to be able to compare to the two
model
>> > >> items.
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the bufr file, the variables at
hand are
>> > COPO
>> > >> > (the
>> > >> > > > > ozone
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> concentration),
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > and also TPHR. TPHR is either -1 or
-8
>> > >> depending on
>> > >> > > > > whether
>> > >> > > > > >> > the
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> observed
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > ozone is a 1-hr or 8-hr average.
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In essence, we have two entities here
>> depending
>> > >> on
>> > >> > the
>> > >> > > > > >> value of
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > TPHR:
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> the
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > 1-hr average ozone and the 8-hr
average
>> ozone.
>> > >> But
>> > >> > > they
>> > >> > > > > >> have
>> > >> > > > > >> > the
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > same
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > value.
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the model we also have two
variables.
>> Both
>> > >> are
>> > >> > > > called
>> > >> > > > > >> > OZCON,
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> but
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > the
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > first one in the file is a 1-hr
average and
>> the
>> > >> > second
>> > >> > > > one
>> > >> > > > > >> is
>> > >> > > > > >> > the
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 8-hr
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average.
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > The trick here is verifying 1-hr
average
>> with
>> > >> 1-hr
>> > >> > > > > average,
>> > >> > > > > >> and
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> 8-hr
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average with 8-hr average. I think
there
>> is a
>> > >> > > > > >> multiplication
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> factor
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > in
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > there somewhere, as the obs are in
units of
>> > >> > mole/mole,
>> > >> > > > > while
>> > >> > > > > >> > the
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > model
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> is
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > in parts per billion (ppb).
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I don't know if you've spoken with
the AQM
>> team
>> > >> on
>> > >> > how
>> > >> > > > > >> exactly
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> to do
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> this,
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > but I was hoping to help them with
this. If
>> > you
>> > >> can
>> > >> > > > > advise
>> > >> > > > > >> on
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> how
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > to
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > do
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > this, that would be great!
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Thanks!
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Perry
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >>
>> > >> > > > > >> > >>
>> > >> > > > > >> > >
>> > >> > > > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >>
>> > >> > > > > >>
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: verifying ozone
From: John Halley Gotway
Time: Tue Mar 13 15:31:21 2018
Perry,
On Monday, we decided that I should do the first (and very early) beta
release of met-7.1 to get this feature to you for testing. But this
version really shouldn't be used for anything other than testing.
Since
this is a beta version for 7.1, my inclination would be to increment
the
version number of the output now... to 7.1. The only downside is that
it
won't be possible to load 7.1 output in METViewer. The loader will
error
out and say that it doesn't know anything about version 7.1.
If you need to be able to load this output into METViewer, we should
keep
the version number back at 7.0... but I'm really worried about
version-itis
here. I don't want to create a confusing mess of output.
Any thoughts?
Thanks,
John
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:57 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
>
> Hi, John,
>
> I'm not sure I caught whether you have something for me to test or
not. I
> think you were asking how to deliver these updates for ozone so I
guess you
> need to deliver first before I can test anything.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Perry
>
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Perry Shafran - NOAA Affiliate <
> perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
>
> > Hi, John,
> >
> > Super, thanks! Let me know if there are any aspects of it that
need
> > clarification.
> >
> > Perry
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:48 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> Perry,
> >>
> >> Yes, I received it. Thanks for the info. I wrote up a
development
> ticket
> >> in JiRA to handle this and Howard Soh is taking a look at it.
I'll let
> >> you
> >> know when we have an update for you.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> John
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:31 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
> >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> >> >
> >> > Hi, John,
> >> >
> >> > I was just wondering if you got this message regarding the DHR
in the
> >> ozone
> >> > airnow file. I hadn't received any acknowledgement of it. I
think
> >> that if
> >> > we are going to read this data correctly for verification,
we'll have
> >> to be
> >> > aware of this and use the DHR to add DHR to the file's
timestamp in
> >> order
> >> > to get the right ob at the right time.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks!
> >> >
> >> > Perry
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Perry Shafran - NOAA Affiliate
<
> >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hi, John,
> >> > >
> >> > > For ozone (and for PM likely as well), the DHR will tell you
the
> time
> >> of
> >> > > the observation. The DHR ranges from -11 to 12 in each file,
so if
> >> you
> >> > > have an observation with DHR of -10, for example, that
observations
> is
> >> > > valid at 02Z. I guess I should have done better to note this
to you
> >> > > previously, but you will need this additional information in
order
> to
> >> get
> >> > > the valid time of the observation. My apologies for not
realizing
> >> this
> >> > > sooner (like before 7.0 was released).
> >> > >
> >> > > The 00Z valid time (as in your example), I just realized, is
a
> special
> >> > > case. Since the DHR ranges from -11 to 12, that means that
the
> valid
> >> > times
> >> > > in the file range from 01Z to 00Z the next day. That's the
reason
> for
> >> > this
> >> > > - it is indeed the 2017080912 <(201)%20708-0912> file but
this
> >> particular
> >> > > valid time is 2017081000 <(201)%20708-1000> because DHR is 12
in
> this
> >> > > case. So that makes it extra special fun for verifying for
the 00Z
> >> valid
> >> > > time, since we will have to go to the previous day's obs file
to
> >> verify
> >> > > that. Every other hour of the day, you won't see this
mismatch.
> >> > >
> >> > > Perry
> >> > >
> >> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:59 AM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> Perry,
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Yes, I see that all the AWIP* GRIB2 files you sent me are
valid at
> >> > >> 2017081000.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> However, the point observations in the prepda.2017081000 are
valid
> >> at
> >> > >> 20170809_120000. Or at least that's what the output of
PB2NC tells
> >> me!
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The timestamps of the data contained in prepda.2017081000 is
> >> 12-hours
> >> > >> earlier than the timestamp of that file indicates. Here's a
log
> >> message
> >> > >> from PB2NC listing out the "center time" for that file:
> >> > >> DEBUG 1: Processing Bufr File: prepda.2017081000
> >> > >> DEBUG 2: Bufr Time Center: 20170809_120000
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Perhaps there's a problem in the naming convention for that
> "prepda"
> >> > >> file... or perhaps there's a good reason for the 12-hour
offset...
> or
> >> > >> perhaps there's some problem in the MET code and we're not
reading
> >> data
> >> > >> from that file correctly?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Thanks,
> >> > >> John
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:37 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via
RT <
> >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > OK, thanks! So this is included in the latest MET
release. I
> think
> >> > >> there
> >> > >> > will definitely be other questions, if I want to be able
to
> verify
> >> > each
> >> > >> > hourly forecast of ozone with the observation. The DHR
tells us
> >> which
> >> > >> hour
> >> > >> > that we are looking for to verify.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > Perry
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:25 AM, John Halley Gotway via RT
<
> >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > > Hi Perry,
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > We just posted the met-7.0 release yesterday. Julie
Prestopnik
> >> is
> >> > >> > actually
> >> > >> > > out at NCEP today, and she'll be the one to install it
on
> >> WCOSS. So
> >> > >> I'll
> >> > >> > > let her chime in to let us know when she's able to do
that.
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > Thanks,
> >> > >> > > John
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:27 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov
via RT
> <
> >> > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> >> >
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > > I am able to start working on this today. Is this
available
> >> for
> >> > >> > testing
> >> > >> > > > now?
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > > Also I'm not entirely sure what you mean in that the
obs and
> >> the
> >> > >> model
> >> > >> > > > don't match up well in time? In the example I sent
you, you
> >> have
> >> > a
> >> > >> set
> >> > >> > > of
> >> > >> > > > observations and all the forecast files that verify at
that
> >> > >> particular
> >> > >> > > > time. Both the model and observed bufr file have 1-
hourly
> >> fields
> >> > >> > (hourly
> >> > >> > > > fields of 1-hr and hourly fields of 8-hr ozone - kind
of hard
> >> to
> >> > >> > imagine
> >> > >> > > > that, but they are just values). So we will also need
a way
> to
> >> > >> match
> >> > >> > up
> >> > >> > > > the observed field with the modeled field at the
> corresponding
> >> > time.
> >> > >> > > (For
> >> > >> > > > example, matching the 3-hr forecast from the 12Z model
run
> with
> >> > the
> >> > >> 15Z
> >> > >> > > > observed field.)
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > > I think this is best achieved with a different
execution of
> >> > >> point_stat
> >> > >> > > for
> >> > >> > > > each individual hour, because that's how I do gridtobs
> anyway.
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > > What are your thoughts on the above?
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > > Thanks!
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > > Perry
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:32 PM, John Halley Gotway via
RT <
> >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu
> >> > >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > > > Hi Perry,
> >> > >> > > > >
> >> > >> > > > > Howard Soh updated the logic in the PB2NC to handle
the 1
> and
> >> > >> 8-hour
> >> > >> > > COPO
> >> > >> > > > > observations in the way we discussed. I wanted to
let you
> >> know
> >> > >> that
> >> > >> > I
> >> > >> > > > > tested it this afternoon and got some good results.
The
> >> sample
> >> > >> > > fcst/obs
> >> > >> > > > > data you sent doesn't line up well in time, so I
just set a
> >> very
> >> > >> > large
> >> > >> > > > > matching time window in Point-Stat.
> >> > >> > > > >
> >> > >> > > > > Here's the relevant pieces of the Point-Stat config
file:
> >> > >> > > > >
> >> > >> > > > > fcst = {
> >> > >> > > > > field = [
> >> > >> > > > > { name = "OZCON"; level = "A01"; },
> >> > >> > > > > { name = "OZCON"; level = "A08"; }
> >> > >> > > > > ];
> >> > >> > > > > }
> >> > >> > > > > obs = {
> >> > >> > > > > message_type = [ "AIRNOW" ];
> >> > >> > > > > convert(x) = x*10^9;
> >> > >> > > > > field = [
> >> > >> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level = "A01"; },
> >> > >> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level = "A08"; }
> >> > >> > > > > ];
> >> > >> > > > > }
> >> > >> > > > >
> >> > >> > > > > And I'm just *guessing* at that conversion factor.
The
> >> > resulting
> >> > >> > > numbers
> >> > >> > > > > look about right, but its up to you to confirm.
Using the
> >> > sample
> >> > >> > data
> >> > >> > > > you
> >> > >> > > > > sent me, this results in a mean error value of 12.64
and
> >> 15.48
> >> > for
> >> > >> > the
> >> > >> > > 1
> >> > >> > > > > and 8-hour accums, respectively. But the fcst/obs
data are
> >> > >> actually
> >> > >> > > > offset
> >> > >> > > > > by 12 hours so these numbers don't mean much, other
than
> >> > >> > demonstrating
> >> > >> > > > > there isn't a huge order of magnitude difference.
> >> > >> > > > >
> >> > >> > > > > Thanks,
> >> > >> > > > > John
> >> > >> > > > >
> >> > >> > > > >
> >> > >> > > > >
> >> > >> > > > >
> >> > >> > > > >
> >> > >> > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:06 PM, John Halley Gotway
<
> >> > >> johnhg at ucar.edu
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > >> > > > >
> >> > >> > > > > > Perry,
> >> > >> > > > > >
> >> > >> > > > > > I think I prefer option 2 as well. I'll ask
Howard Soh,
> >> one
> >> > of
> >> > >> the
> >> > >> > > > > > developers here, to add specific logic for the
AIRNOW
> >> message
> >> > >> type,
> >> > >> > > > > where...
> >> > >> > > > > > - level = absolute value of TPHR
> >> > >> > > > > > - qc flag = QCIND
> >> > >> > > > > >
> >> > >> > > > > > John
> >> > >> > > > > >
> >> > >> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:00 PM,
perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> >> via
> >> > RT
> >> > >> <
> >> > >> > > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> > >> > > > > >
> >> > >> > > > > >>
> >> > >> > > > > >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >>
> >> > >> > > > > >> Hi, John,
> >> > >> > > > > >>
> >> > >> > > > > >> What would be easier in comparing to the model
output,
> do
> >> you
> >> > >> > think?
> >> > >> > > > I
> >> > >> > > > > >> think that having it as some sort of
"accumulation
> >> variable"
> >> > >> (the
> >> > >> > > 2nd
> >> > >> > > > > >> option) would work.
> >> > >> > > > > >>
> >> > >> > > > > >> In the model, though, they are not listed as
either 1 or
> >> 8 hr
> >> > >> > > > > >> accumulations/averages. They are listed as
either, for
> >> > example
> >> > >> > for
> >> > >> > > > the
> >> > >> > > > > 24
> >> > >> > > > > >> hr forecast, either "23-24 hr ave fcst" or "16-24
hr ave
> >> > fcst".
> >> > >> > > Would
> >> > >> > > > > be
> >> > >> > > > > >> easier if it said "1 hr ave fcst" or "8 hr ave
fcst",
> but
> >> > >> again,
> >> > >> > > > that's
> >> > >> > > > > >> not
> >> > >> > > > > >> what we got. So I'm guessing that might make it
a
> little
> >> > more
> >> > >> > > > > challenging
> >> > >> > > > > >> for the model to script up?
> >> > >> > > > > >>
> >> > >> > > > > >> Perry
> >> > >> > > > > >>
> >> > >> > > > > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:50 PM, John Halley
Gotway via
> >> RT <
> >> > >> > > > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> > >> > > > > >>
> >> > >> > > > > >> > Perry,
> >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > I wanted to check how point observations of
precip are
> >> > >> stored in
> >> > >> > > > > >> PrepBUFR
> >> > >> > > > > >> > so I ran PB2NC on an old NDAS file using the
-index
> >> option.
> >> > >> > > Here's
> >> > >> > > > > >> what I
> >> > >> > > > > >> > found:
> >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP06: TOTAL PRECIPITATION PAST
6
> >> > >> > > > > >> > HOURS types: ADPSFC
> >> > >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP24: TOTAL PRECIPITATION PAST
24
> >> > >> > > > > >> > HOURS types: ADPSFC
> >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > So basically, the accumulation interval exists
in the
> >> > >> > observation
> >> > >> > > > > >> variable
> >> > >> > > > > >> > name. Following that paradigm, if the AIRNOW
> >> observations
> >> > >> were
> >> > >> > > > stored
> >> > >> > > > > >> > using COPO01 and COPO08, then MET would already
be
> able
> >> to
> >> > >> > handle
> >> > >> > > > them
> >> > >> > > > > >> > already. But I suppose we're likely stuck with
what
> >> we've
> >> > >> got.
> >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > I can see 2 ways we could handle this for
processing
> >> AIRNOW
> >> > >> > > message
> >> > >> > > > > >> > types...
> >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > Option 1: Follow the precip example and modify
the
> >> > >> observation
> >> > >> > > > > variable
> >> > >> > > > > >> > names by appending the TPHR value. Instead of
COPO,
> >> we'd
> >> > >> have
> >> > >> > > > > >> observations
> >> > >> > > > > >> > named COPO01 and COPO08. And if we ever see
TPHR =
> -24,
> >> > >> that'd
> >> > >> > > > > produce
> >> > >> > > > > >> a
> >> > >> > > > > >> > COPO24 variable name.
> >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > Option 2: We could keep the COPO variable name
> >> unchanged,
> >> > and
> >> > >> > > > instead
> >> > >> > > > > >> set
> >> > >> > > > > >> > the "level" value for these observations to
indicate
> the
> >> > >> > > > accumulation
> >> > >> > > > > >> > interval. If you look at the ascii2nc usage
> statement,
> >> > >> you'll
> >> > >> > see
> >> > >> > > > the
> >> > >> > > > > >> > following:
> >> > >> > > > > >> > "Level" is the pressure level (hPa) or
accumulation
> >> > >> interval
> >> > >> > > > > >> (HH[MMSS]).
> >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > So we could use the value of TPHR to define the
level
> >> as an
> >> > >> > > > > >> "accumulation"
> >> > >> > > > > >> > interval.
> >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > Either option could be made to work in MET.
Does one
> >> make
> >> > >> more
> >> > >> > > > sense
> >> > >> > > > > to
> >> > >> > > > > >> > you than the other?
> >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > While we're doing this, I assume we should also
using
> >> the
> >> > >> QCIND
> >> > >> > > > value
> >> > >> > > > > to
> >> > >> > > > > >> > populate the obs_qty (i.e. quality control)
setting?
> >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > Thanks,
> >> > >> > > > > >> > John
> >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:34 PM, John Halley
Gotway <
> >> > >> > > > johnhg at ucar.edu>
> >> > >> > > > > >> > wrote:
> >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > > Perry,
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > > Until users dive into the details, we won't
know
> about
> >> > >> these
> >> > >> > > sorts
> >> > >> > > > > of
> >> > >> > > > > >> -1
> >> > >> > > > > >> > > vs -8 issues. But once we identify the
> requirements,
> >> we
> >> > >> can
> >> > >> > > > update
> >> > >> > > > > >> the
> >> > >> > > > > >> > > software to handle them.
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > > So please keep the feedback coming.
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks,
> >> > >> > > > > >> > > John
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:31 PM,
> >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> >> > >> via
> >> > >> > RT
> >> > >> > > <
> >> > >> > > > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> >> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Hi, John,
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> OK, thanks! I thought the latest version of
MET
> >> that we
> >> > >> were
> >> > >> > > > using
> >> > >> > > > > >> was
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> configured for the air quality applications?
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Perry
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:26 PM, John Halley
Gotway
> >> via
> >> > >> RT <
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Perry,
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > I just grabbed them and ran the forecast
data
> >> through
> >> > >> the
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> plot_data_plane
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > utility. Looks like specifying the level
as an
> >> > >> > accumulation
> >> > >> > > > type
> >> > >> > > > > >> does
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> the
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > trick:
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_data_plane
> >> AWIP3D18.tm00
> >> > >> > > > > OZCON_1hr.ps
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A1";'
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_data_plane
> >> AWIP3D18.tm00
> >> > >> > > > > OZCON_8hr.ps
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A8";'
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > The resulting images are attached.
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Next, I ran pb2nc using the -index option
to see
> a
> >> > >> > > description
> >> > >> > > > of
> >> > >> > > > > >> the
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > prepda contents:
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/pb2nc
prepda.2017081000
> >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> >> > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> >> > >> > > > <(201)%20708-1000>
> >> > >> > > > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > prepda.2017081000.nc
> /usr/local/met-6.1/share/met/
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > config/PB2NCConfig_default
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > -index -log pb2nc_index.log
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Header variables:
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SID: STATION
IDENTIFICATION
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: XOB: LONGITUDE
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: YOB: LATITUDE
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: DHR: OBSERVATION TIME
MINUS
> CYCLE
> >> > TIME
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ELV:
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYP: PREPBUFR REPORT TYPE
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: T29: DATA DUMP REPORT
TYPE
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ITP:
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Observation variables:
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: COPO: CONCENTRATION OF
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > POLLUTANT
types:
> >> AIRNOW
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYPO: TYPE OF POLLUTANT
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: CAT: PREPBUFR DATA LEVEL
> CATEGORY
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: PROCN: PROCESS NUMBER FOR
THIS MPI
> >> RUN
> >> > >> > > (OBTAINED
> >> > >> > > > > >> FROM
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > SCRIPT)
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SQN: REPORT SEQUENCE
NUMBER
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: QCIND: QUALITY CONTROL
INDICATION
> OF
> >> > >> > FOLLOWING
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DATA types: AIRNOW
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TSIG: TIME SIGNIFICANCE
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: RPT: REPORTED OBSERVATION
TIME
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TPHR: TIME PERIOD OR
DISPLACEMENT
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > I see the COPO and TPHR observations
listed.
> We'll
> >> > >> need to
> >> > >> > > > > update
> >> > >> > > > > >> the
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > PB2NC code to handle the logic you've
described.
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > One option for specifying the 1 vs 8 hour
> >> difference
> >> > >> would
> >> > >> > be
> >> > >> > > > to
> >> > >> > > > > >> mimic
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> how
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > different precip accumulation intervals
are
> stored
> >> for
> >> > >> > > gauges.
> >> > >> > > > > >> I'll
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> look
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > more into how we might do that.
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Thanks,
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > John
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:17 PM,
> >> > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> >> > >> > via
> >> > >> > > > RT
> >> > >> > > > > <
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> >> > >> > > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> >> > >> > > > > >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Hi, John,
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > I was just wondering if you have found
and
> >> received
> >> > >> these
> >> > >> > > > > files.
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Thanks!
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Perry
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Perry
> Shafran -
> >> > NOAA
> >> > >> > > > > Affiliate
> >> > >> > > > > >> <
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > I just transferred some model files
and an ob
> >> file
> >> > >> here
> >> > >> > > on
> >> > >> > > > > >> Theia.
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> All
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > these model files verify at the ob
time here.
> >> > Have
> >> > >> a
> >> > >> > > look:
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > /scratch4/NCEPDEV/meso/save/
> >> > Perry.Shafran/for_john
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Perry
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 6:55 PM, John
Halley
> >> > Gotway
> >> > >> via
> >> > >> > > RT
> >> > >> > > > <
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Hi Perry,
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Can you please point me to a model
output
> file
> >> > >> > > containing
> >> > >> > > > > the
> >> > >> > > > > >> > OZCON
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> fields? Presumably, these are in
GRIB1 or 2
> >> > >> format,
> >> > >> > and
> >> > >> > > > > >> > hopefully,
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> there's
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> some flag in the header that will
enable us
> to
> >> > >> > > distinguish
> >> > >> > > > > >> > between
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> the
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> GRIB
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> records containing 1 and 8 hour
averages.
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> As for the point observations, I
suspect
> that
> >> > we'll
> >> > >> > need
> >> > >> > > > to
> >> > >> > > > > >> add
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> logic
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > to
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> PB2NC to distinguish between the 1
and 8
> hour
> >> > COPO
> >> > >> > > > > >> > concentrations.
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Perhaps
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> we could update PB2NC to use the TPHR
values
> >> to
> >> > >> > renamed
> >> > >> > > > COPO
> >> > >> > > > > >> to
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> COPO_1
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > and
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> COPO_8?
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Are these COPO point observations
present in
> >> NDAS
> >> > >> or
> >> > >> > > GDAS
> >> > >> > > > > >> > PrepBUFR
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > files?
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Thanks,
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> John
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:40 PM,
> >> > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> >> > >> > > > via
> >> > >> > > > > >> RT <
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Tue Feb 20 13:40:01 2018: Request
84134
> was
> >> > acted
> >> > >> > > upon.
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Transaction: Ticket created by
> >> > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Queue: met_help
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Subject: verifying ozone
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Owner: Nobody
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Requestors:
perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Status: new
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Ticket <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Hi, everyone,
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I am helping the AQM group verify
ozone
> and
> >> I
> >> > >> need
> >> > >> > > some
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> assistance
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > in
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> using
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > PB2NC (and then later point_stat,
but
> let's
> >> > start
> >> > >> > with
> >> > >> > > > > >> > PB2NC). I
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > need
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> to
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > be able to read in two quantities
from the
> >> > >> prepbufr
> >> > >> > > file
> >> > >> > > > > and
> >> > >> > > > > >> > then
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> combine
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > that to be able to compare to the
two
> model
> >> > >> items.
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the bufr file, the variables at
hand
> are
> >> > COPO
> >> > >> > (the
> >> > >> > > > > ozone
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> concentration),
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > and also TPHR. TPHR is either -1
or -8
> >> > >> depending on
> >> > >> > > > > whether
> >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> observed
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > ozone is a 1-hr or 8-hr average.
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In essence, we have two entities
here
> >> depending
> >> > >> on
> >> > >> > the
> >> > >> > > > > >> value of
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > TPHR:
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> the
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > 1-hr average ozone and the 8-hr
average
> >> ozone.
> >> > >> But
> >> > >> > > they
> >> > >> > > > > >> have
> >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > same
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > value.
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the model we also have two
variables.
> >> Both
> >> > >> are
> >> > >> > > > called
> >> > >> > > > > >> > OZCON,
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> but
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > the
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > first one in the file is a 1-hr
average
> and
> >> the
> >> > >> > second
> >> > >> > > > one
> >> > >> > > > > >> is
> >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 8-hr
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average.
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > The trick here is verifying 1-hr
average
> >> with
> >> > >> 1-hr
> >> > >> > > > > average,
> >> > >> > > > > >> and
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> 8-hr
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average with 8-hr average. I think
there
> >> is a
> >> > >> > > > > >> multiplication
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> factor
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > in
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > there somewhere, as the obs are in
units
> of
> >> > >> > mole/mole,
> >> > >> > > > > while
> >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > model
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> is
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > in parts per billion (ppb).
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I don't know if you've spoken with
the AQM
> >> team
> >> > >> on
> >> > >> > how
> >> > >> > > > > >> exactly
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> to do
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> this,
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > but I was hoping to help them with
this.
> If
> >> > you
> >> > >> can
> >> > >> > > > > advise
> >> > >> > > > > >> on
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> how
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > to
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > do
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > this, that would be great!
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Thanks!
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Perry
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> > >> > > > > >>
> >> > >> > > > > >>
> >> > >> > > > > >
> >> > >> > > > >
> >> > >> > > > >
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: verifying ozone
From: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
Time: Wed Mar 14 06:46:56 2018
Hi, John,
At this point my main concern is the ability to run MET and get good
MET
output on some of the air quality items. Then once that's done, worry
later about METViewer concerns. I do think we'll want to eventually
compare VSDB vs MET output using METViewer, but that seems to be a
down the
road issue (though not too far down the road, so if there is a
METViewer
update coming up, put this in it).
Thanks!
Perry
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 5:31 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> Perry,
>
> On Monday, we decided that I should do the first (and very early)
beta
> release of met-7.1 to get this feature to you for testing. But this
> version really shouldn't be used for anything other than testing.
Since
> this is a beta version for 7.1, my inclination would be to increment
the
> version number of the output now... to 7.1. The only downside is
that it
> won't be possible to load 7.1 output in METViewer. The loader will
error
> out and say that it doesn't know anything about version 7.1.
>
> If you need to be able to load this output into METViewer, we should
keep
> the version number back at 7.0... but I'm really worried about
version-itis
> here. I don't want to create a confusing mess of output.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:57 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> >
> > Hi, John,
> >
> > I'm not sure I caught whether you have something for me to test or
not.
> I
> > think you were asking how to deliver these updates for ozone so I
guess
> you
> > need to deliver first before I can test anything.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Perry
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Perry Shafran - NOAA Affiliate <
> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi, John,
> > >
> > > Super, thanks! Let me know if there are any aspects of it that
need
> > > clarification.
> > >
> > > Perry
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:48 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Perry,
> > >>
> > >> Yes, I received it. Thanks for the info. I wrote up a
development
> > ticket
> > >> in JiRA to handle this and Howard Soh is taking a look at it.
I'll
> let
> > >> you
> > >> know when we have an update for you.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> John
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:31 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
>
> > >> >
> > >> > Hi, John,
> > >> >
> > >> > I was just wondering if you got this message regarding the
DHR in
> the
> > >> ozone
> > >> > airnow file. I hadn't received any acknowledgement of it. I
think
> > >> that if
> > >> > we are going to read this data correctly for verification,
we'll
> have
> > >> to be
> > >> > aware of this and use the DHR to add DHR to the file's
timestamp in
> > >> order
> > >> > to get the right ob at the right time.
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks!
> > >> >
> > >> > Perry
> > >> >
> > >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Perry Shafran - NOAA
Affiliate <
> > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Hi, John,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > For ozone (and for PM likely as well), the DHR will tell
you the
> > time
> > >> of
> > >> > > the observation. The DHR ranges from -11 to 12 in each
file, so
> if
> > >> you
> > >> > > have an observation with DHR of -10, for example, that
> observations
> > is
> > >> > > valid at 02Z. I guess I should have done better to note
this to
> you
> > >> > > previously, but you will need this additional information
in order
> > to
> > >> get
> > >> > > the valid time of the observation. My apologies for not
realizing
> > >> this
> > >> > > sooner (like before 7.0 was released).
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The 00Z valid time (as in your example), I just realized,
is a
> > special
> > >> > > case. Since the DHR ranges from -11 to 12, that means that
the
> > valid
> > >> > times
> > >> > > in the file range from 01Z to 00Z the next day. That's the
reason
> > for
> > >> > this
> > >> > > - it is indeed the 2017080912 <(201)%20708-0912> file but
this
> > >> particular
> > >> > > valid time is 2017081000 <(201)%20708-1000> because DHR is
12 in
> > this
> > >> > > case. So that makes it extra special fun for verifying for
the
> 00Z
> > >> valid
> > >> > > time, since we will have to go to the previous day's obs
file to
> > >> verify
> > >> > > that. Every other hour of the day, you won't see this
mismatch.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Perry
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:59 AM, John Halley Gotway via RT
<
> > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > >> Perry,
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Yes, I see that all the AWIP* GRIB2 files you sent me are
valid
> at
> > >> > >> 2017081000.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> However, the point observations in the prepda.2017081000
are
> valid
> > >> at
> > >> > >> 20170809_120000. Or at least that's what the output of
PB2NC
> tells
> > >> me!
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> The timestamps of the data contained in prepda.2017081000
is
> > >> 12-hours
> > >> > >> earlier than the timestamp of that file indicates. Here's
a log
> > >> message
> > >> > >> from PB2NC listing out the "center time" for that file:
> > >> > >> DEBUG 1: Processing Bufr File: prepda.2017081000
> > >> > >> DEBUG 2: Bufr Time Center: 20170809_120000
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Perhaps there's a problem in the naming convention for
that
> > "prepda"
> > >> > >> file... or perhaps there's a good reason for the 12-hour
> offset...
> > or
> > >> > >> perhaps there's some problem in the MET code and we're not
> reading
> > >> data
> > >> > >> from that file correctly?
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Thanks,
> > >> > >> John
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:37 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via
RT <
> > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> >
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > OK, thanks! So this is included in the latest MET
release. I
> > think
> > >> > >> there
> > >> > >> > will definitely be other questions, if I want to be able
to
> > verify
> > >> > each
> > >> > >> > hourly forecast of ozone with the observation. The DHR
tells
> us
> > >> which
> > >> > >> hour
> > >> > >> > that we are looking for to verify.
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > Perry
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:25 AM, John Halley Gotway via
RT <
> > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > > Hi Perry,
> > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> > > We just posted the met-7.0 release yesterday. Julie
> Prestopnik
> > >> is
> > >> > >> > actually
> > >> > >> > > out at NCEP today, and she'll be the one to install it
on
> > >> WCOSS. So
> > >> > >> I'll
> > >> > >> > > let her chime in to let us know when she's able to do
that.
> > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> > > Thanks,
> > >> > >> > > John
> > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:27 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov
via
> RT
> > <
> > >> > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > >> > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > >> >
> > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > >> > > > I am able to start working on this today. Is this
> available
> > >> for
> > >> > >> > testing
> > >> > >> > > > now?
> > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > >> > > > Also I'm not entirely sure what you mean in that the
obs
> and
> > >> the
> > >> > >> model
> > >> > >> > > > don't match up well in time? In the example I sent
you,
> you
> > >> have
> > >> > a
> > >> > >> set
> > >> > >> > > of
> > >> > >> > > > observations and all the forecast files that verify
at that
> > >> > >> particular
> > >> > >> > > > time. Both the model and observed bufr file have 1-
hourly
> > >> fields
> > >> > >> > (hourly
> > >> > >> > > > fields of 1-hr and hourly fields of 8-hr ozone -
kind of
> hard
> > >> to
> > >> > >> > imagine
> > >> > >> > > > that, but they are just values). So we will also
need a
> way
> > to
> > >> > >> match
> > >> > >> > up
> > >> > >> > > > the observed field with the modeled field at the
> > corresponding
> > >> > time.
> > >> > >> > > (For
> > >> > >> > > > example, matching the 3-hr forecast from the 12Z
model run
> > with
> > >> > the
> > >> > >> 15Z
> > >> > >> > > > observed field.)
> > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > >> > > > I think this is best achieved with a different
execution of
> > >> > >> point_stat
> > >> > >> > > for
> > >> > >> > > > each individual hour, because that's how I do
gridtobs
> > anyway.
> > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > >> > > > What are your thoughts on the above?
> > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
> > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > >> > > > Perry
> > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > >> > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:32 PM, John Halley Gotway
via RT <
> > >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu
> > >> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > Hi Perry,
> > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > Howard Soh updated the logic in the PB2NC to
handle the 1
> > and
> > >> > >> 8-hour
> > >> > >> > > COPO
> > >> > >> > > > > observations in the way we discussed. I wanted to
let
> you
> > >> know
> > >> > >> that
> > >> > >> > I
> > >> > >> > > > > tested it this afternoon and got some good
results. The
> > >> sample
> > >> > >> > > fcst/obs
> > >> > >> > > > > data you sent doesn't line up well in time, so I
just
> set a
> > >> very
> > >> > >> > large
> > >> > >> > > > > matching time window in Point-Stat.
> > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > Here's the relevant pieces of the Point-Stat
config file:
> > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > fcst = {
> > >> > >> > > > > field = [
> > >> > >> > > > > { name = "OZCON"; level = "A01"; },
> > >> > >> > > > > { name = "OZCON"; level = "A08"; }
> > >> > >> > > > > ];
> > >> > >> > > > > }
> > >> > >> > > > > obs = {
> > >> > >> > > > > message_type = [ "AIRNOW" ];
> > >> > >> > > > > convert(x) = x*10^9;
> > >> > >> > > > > field = [
> > >> > >> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level = "A01"; },
> > >> > >> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level = "A08"; }
> > >> > >> > > > > ];
> > >> > >> > > > > }
> > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > And I'm just *guessing* at that conversion factor.
The
> > >> > resulting
> > >> > >> > > numbers
> > >> > >> > > > > look about right, but its up to you to confirm.
Using
> the
> > >> > sample
> > >> > >> > data
> > >> > >> > > > you
> > >> > >> > > > > sent me, this results in a mean error value of
12.64 and
> > >> 15.48
> > >> > for
> > >> > >> > the
> > >> > >> > > 1
> > >> > >> > > > > and 8-hour accums, respectively. But the fcst/obs
data
> are
> > >> > >> actually
> > >> > >> > > > offset
> > >> > >> > > > > by 12 hours so these numbers don't mean much,
other than
> > >> > >> > demonstrating
> > >> > >> > > > > there isn't a huge order of magnitude difference.
> > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > Thanks,
> > >> > >> > > > > John
> > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:06 PM, John Halley
Gotway <
> > >> > >> johnhg at ucar.edu
> > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > > Perry,
> > >> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > > I think I prefer option 2 as well. I'll ask
Howard
> Soh,
> > >> one
> > >> > of
> > >> > >> the
> > >> > >> > > > > > developers here, to add specific logic for the
AIRNOW
> > >> message
> > >> > >> type,
> > >> > >> > > > > where...
> > >> > >> > > > > > - level = absolute value of TPHR
> > >> > >> > > > > > - qc flag = QCIND
> > >> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > > John
> > >> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:00 PM,
> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > >> via
> > >> > RT
> > >> > >> <
> > >> > >> > > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > >> > > > > >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > >> > > > > >> Hi, John,
> > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > >> > > > > >> What would be easier in comparing to the model
output,
> > do
> > >> you
> > >> > >> > think?
> > >> > >> > > > I
> > >> > >> > > > > >> think that having it as some sort of
"accumulation
> > >> variable"
> > >> > >> (the
> > >> > >> > > 2nd
> > >> > >> > > > > >> option) would work.
> > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > >> > > > > >> In the model, though, they are not listed as
either 1
> or
> > >> 8 hr
> > >> > >> > > > > >> accumulations/averages. They are listed as
either,
> for
> > >> > example
> > >> > >> > for
> > >> > >> > > > the
> > >> > >> > > > > 24
> > >> > >> > > > > >> hr forecast, either "23-24 hr ave fcst" or "16-
24 hr
> ave
> > >> > fcst".
> > >> > >> > > Would
> > >> > >> > > > > be
> > >> > >> > > > > >> easier if it said "1 hr ave fcst" or "8 hr ave
fcst",
> > but
> > >> > >> again,
> > >> > >> > > > that's
> > >> > >> > > > > >> not
> > >> > >> > > > > >> what we got. So I'm guessing that might make
it a
> > little
> > >> > more
> > >> > >> > > > > challenging
> > >> > >> > > > > >> for the model to script up?
> > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > >> > > > > >> Perry
> > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > >> > > > > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:50 PM, John Halley
Gotway
> via
> > >> RT <
> > >> > >> > > > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > Perry,
> > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > I wanted to check how point observations of
precip
> are
> > >> > >> stored in
> > >> > >> > > > > >> PrepBUFR
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > so I ran PB2NC on an old NDAS file using the
-index
> > >> option.
> > >> > >> > > Here's
> > >> > >> > > > > >> what I
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > found:
> > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP06: TOTAL PRECIPITATION
PAST 6
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > HOURS types: ADPSFC
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP24: TOTAL PRECIPITATION
PAST 24
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > HOURS types: ADPSFC
> > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > So basically, the accumulation interval
exists in
> the
> > >> > >> > observation
> > >> > >> > > > > >> variable
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > name. Following that paradigm, if the AIRNOW
> > >> observations
> > >> > >> were
> > >> > >> > > > stored
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > using COPO01 and COPO08, then MET would
already be
> > able
> > >> to
> > >> > >> > handle
> > >> > >> > > > them
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > already. But I suppose we're likely stuck
with what
> > >> we've
> > >> > >> got.
> > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > I can see 2 ways we could handle this for
processing
> > >> AIRNOW
> > >> > >> > > message
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > types...
> > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > Option 1: Follow the precip example and
modify the
> > >> > >> observation
> > >> > >> > > > > variable
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > names by appending the TPHR value. Instead
of COPO,
> > >> we'd
> > >> > >> have
> > >> > >> > > > > >> observations
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > named COPO01 and COPO08. And if we ever see
TPHR =
> > -24,
> > >> > >> that'd
> > >> > >> > > > > produce
> > >> > >> > > > > >> a
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > COPO24 variable name.
> > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > Option 2: We could keep the COPO variable
name
> > >> unchanged,
> > >> > and
> > >> > >> > > > instead
> > >> > >> > > > > >> set
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > the "level" value for these observations to
indicate
> > the
> > >> > >> > > > accumulation
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > interval. If you look at the ascii2nc usage
> > statement,
> > >> > >> you'll
> > >> > >> > see
> > >> > >> > > > the
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > following:
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > "Level" is the pressure level (hPa) or
> accumulation
> > >> > >> interval
> > >> > >> > > > > >> (HH[MMSS]).
> > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > So we could use the value of TPHR to define
the
> level
> > >> as an
> > >> > >> > > > > >> "accumulation"
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > interval.
> > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > Either option could be made to work in MET.
Does
> one
> > >> make
> > >> > >> more
> > >> > >> > > > sense
> > >> > >> > > > > to
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > you than the other?
> > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > While we're doing this, I assume we should
also
> using
> > >> the
> > >> > >> QCIND
> > >> > >> > > > value
> > >> > >> > > > > to
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > populate the obs_qty (i.e. quality control)
setting?
> > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > Thanks,
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > John
> > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:34 PM, John Halley
Gotway
> <
> > >> > >> > > > johnhg at ucar.edu>
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Perry,
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Until users dive into the details, we won't
know
> > about
> > >> > >> these
> > >> > >> > > sorts
> > >> > >> > > > > of
> > >> > >> > > > > >> -1
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > > vs -8 issues. But once we identify the
> > requirements,
> > >> we
> > >> > >> can
> > >> > >> > > > update
> > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > > software to handle them.
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > > So please keep the feedback coming.
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks,
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > > John
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:31 PM,
> > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > >> > >> via
> > >> > >> > RT
> > >> > >> > > <
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > >> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Hi, John,
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> OK, thanks! I thought the latest version
of MET
> > >> that we
> > >> > >> were
> > >> > >> > > > using
> > >> > >> > > > > >> was
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> configured for the air quality
applications?
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Perry
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:26 PM, John
Halley
> Gotway
> > >> via
> > >> > >> RT <
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Perry,
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > I just grabbed them and ran the forecast
data
> > >> through
> > >> > >> the
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> plot_data_plane
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > utility. Looks like specifying the
level as an
> > >> > >> > accumulation
> > >> > >> > > > type
> > >> > >> > > > > >> does
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> the
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > trick:
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_data_plane
> > >> AWIP3D18.tm00
> > >> > >> > > > > OZCON_1hr.ps
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A1";'
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_data_plane
> > >> AWIP3D18.tm00
> > >> > >> > > > > OZCON_8hr.ps
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A8";'
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > The resulting images are attached.
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Next, I ran pb2nc using the -index
option to
> see
> > a
> > >> > >> > > description
> > >> > >> > > > of
> > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > prepda contents:
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/pb2nc
prepda.2017081000
> > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > >> > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > >> > >> > > > <(201)%20708-1000>
> > >> > >> > > > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > prepda.2017081000.nc
> > /usr/local/met-6.1/share/met/
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > config/PB2NCConfig_default
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > -index -log pb2nc_index.log
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Header variables:
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SID: STATION
IDENTIFICATION
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: XOB: LONGITUDE
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: YOB: LATITUDE
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: DHR: OBSERVATION TIME
MINUS
> > CYCLE
> > >> > TIME
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ELV:
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYP: PREPBUFR REPORT
TYPE
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: T29: DATA DUMP REPORT
TYPE
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ITP:
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Observation variables:
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: COPO: CONCENTRATION OF
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > POLLUTANT
types:
> > >> AIRNOW
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYPO: TYPE OF POLLUTANT
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: CAT: PREPBUFR DATA
LEVEL
> > CATEGORY
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: PROCN: PROCESS NUMBER FOR
THIS
> MPI
> > >> RUN
> > >> > >> > > (OBTAINED
> > >> > >> > > > > >> FROM
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > SCRIPT)
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SQN: REPORT SEQUENCE
NUMBER
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: QCIND: QUALITY CONTROL
> INDICATION
> > OF
> > >> > >> > FOLLOWING
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DATA types: AIRNOW
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TSIG: TIME SIGNIFICANCE
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: RPT: REPORTED
OBSERVATION TIME
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TPHR: TIME PERIOD OR
> DISPLACEMENT
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > I see the COPO and TPHR observations
listed.
> > We'll
> > >> > >> need to
> > >> > >> > > > > update
> > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > PB2NC code to handle the logic you've
> described.
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > One option for specifying the 1 vs 8
hour
> > >> difference
> > >> > >> would
> > >> > >> > be
> > >> > >> > > > to
> > >> > >> > > > > >> mimic
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> how
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > different precip accumulation intervals
are
> > stored
> > >> for
> > >> > >> > > gauges.
> > >> > >> > > > > >> I'll
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> look
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > more into how we might do that.
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Thanks,
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > John
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:17 PM,
> > >> > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > >> > >> > via
> > >> > >> > > > RT
> > >> > >> > > > > <
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > >> > >> > > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > >> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Hi, John,
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > I was just wondering if you have found
and
> > >> received
> > >> > >> these
> > >> > >> > > > > files.
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Thanks!
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Perry
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:30 AM,
Perry
> > Shafran -
> > >> > NOAA
> > >> > >> > > > > Affiliate
> > >> > >> > > > > >> <
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > I just transferred some model files
and an
> ob
> > >> file
> > >> > >> here
> > >> > >> > > on
> > >> > >> > > > > >> Theia.
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> All
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > these model files verify at the ob
time
> here.
> > >> > Have
> > >> > >> a
> > >> > >> > > look:
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > /scratch4/NCEPDEV/meso/save/
> > >> > Perry.Shafran/for_john
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Perry
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 6:55 PM,
John
> Halley
> > >> > Gotway
> > >> > >> via
> > >> > >> > > RT
> > >> > >> > > > <
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Hi Perry,
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Can you please point me to a model
output
> > file
> > >> > >> > > containing
> > >> > >> > > > > the
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > OZCON
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> fields? Presumably, these are in
GRIB1
> or 2
> > >> > >> format,
> > >> > >> > and
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > hopefully,
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> there's
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> some flag in the header that will
enable
> us
> > to
> > >> > >> > > distinguish
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > between
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> the
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> GRIB
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> records containing 1 and 8 hour
averages.
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> As for the point observations, I
suspect
> > that
> > >> > we'll
> > >> > >> > need
> > >> > >> > > > to
> > >> > >> > > > > >> add
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> logic
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > to
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> PB2NC to distinguish between the 1
and 8
> > hour
> > >> > COPO
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > concentrations.
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Perhaps
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> we could update PB2NC to use the
TPHR
> values
> > >> to
> > >> > >> > renamed
> > >> > >> > > > COPO
> > >> > >> > > > > >> to
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> COPO_1
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > and
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> COPO_8?
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Are these COPO point observations
present
> in
> > >> NDAS
> > >> > >> or
> > >> > >> > > GDAS
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > PrepBUFR
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > files?
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Thanks,
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> John
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:40 PM,
> > >> > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > >> > >> > > > via
> > >> > >> > > > > >> RT <
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Tue Feb 20 13:40:01 2018: Request
84134
> > was
> > >> > acted
> > >> > >> > > upon.
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Transaction: Ticket created by
> > >> > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Queue: met_help
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Subject: verifying ozone
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Owner: Nobody
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Requestors:
perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Status: new
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Ticket <URL:
> https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Hi, everyone,
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I am helping the AQM group verify
ozone
> > and
> > >> I
> > >> > >> need
> > >> > >> > > some
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> assistance
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > in
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> using
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > PB2NC (and then later point_stat,
but
> > let's
> > >> > start
> > >> > >> > with
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > PB2NC). I
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > need
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> to
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > be able to read in two quantities
from
> the
> > >> > >> prepbufr
> > >> > >> > > file
> > >> > >> > > > > and
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > then
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> combine
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > that to be able to compare to the
two
> > model
> > >> > >> items.
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the bufr file, the variables
at hand
> > are
> > >> > COPO
> > >> > >> > (the
> > >> > >> > > > > ozone
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> concentration),
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > and also TPHR. TPHR is either -1
or -8
> > >> > >> depending on
> > >> > >> > > > > whether
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> observed
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > ozone is a 1-hr or 8-hr average.
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In essence, we have two entities
here
> > >> depending
> > >> > >> on
> > >> > >> > the
> > >> > >> > > > > >> value of
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > TPHR:
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> the
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > 1-hr average ozone and the 8-hr
average
> > >> ozone.
> > >> > >> But
> > >> > >> > > they
> > >> > >> > > > > >> have
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > same
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > value.
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the model we also have two
variables.
> > >> Both
> > >> > >> are
> > >> > >> > > > called
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > OZCON,
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> but
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > the
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > first one in the file is a 1-hr
average
> > and
> > >> the
> > >> > >> > second
> > >> > >> > > > one
> > >> > >> > > > > >> is
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 8-hr
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average.
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > The trick here is verifying 1-hr
average
> > >> with
> > >> > >> 1-hr
> > >> > >> > > > > average,
> > >> > >> > > > > >> and
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> 8-hr
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average with 8-hr average. I
think
> there
> > >> is a
> > >> > >> > > > > >> multiplication
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> factor
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > in
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > there somewhere, as the obs are
in units
> > of
> > >> > >> > mole/mole,
> > >> > >> > > > > while
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > model
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> is
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > in parts per billion (ppb).
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I don't know if you've spoken
with the
> AQM
> > >> team
> > >> > >> on
> > >> > >> > how
> > >> > >> > > > > >> exactly
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> to do
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> this,
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > but I was hoping to help them
with this.
> > If
> > >> > you
> > >> > >> can
> > >> > >> > > > > advise
> > >> > >> > > > > >> on
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> how
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > to
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > do
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > this, that would be great!
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Thanks!
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Perry
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: verifying ozone
From: John Halley Gotway
Time: Fri Mar 16 15:41:47 2018
Perry and Julie,
I just created a met-7.1_beta1 release to enable Perry to do the
testing he
needs.
I posted the tarball to the MET website:
www.dtcenter.org/met/users/downloads/MET_releases/met-
7.1_beta1.20180316.tar.gz
Perry, I assume it'd be most convenient for you to have this available
on
WCOSS for testing? If not, please let us know where.
Julie, assuming Perry wants it on the dev side of WCOSS, can you
please
install it in your personal area, and tell Perry how he can access it?
Here's the very short list of changes included in met-7.1_beta1 (taken
from
the top-level README file):
Version 7.1 BETA 1 Release Notes:
--------------------------------
- Make logic for finding matching UGRD/VGRD verification tasks more
robust
in
Point-Stat and Grid-Stat.
- Fix PB2NC's computation of valid time for AIRNOW observations.
- Minor bugfix for Series-Analysis when computing min/max timing info
for
series with some missing input files.
- Enable vld_thresh = 0 in Ensemble-Stat and Series-Analysis.
- Update pntnc2ascii.R Rscript to handle obs_var variable.
Thanks,
John
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 6:46 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
>
> Hi, John,
>
> At this point my main concern is the ability to run MET and get good
MET
> output on some of the air quality items. Then once that's done,
worry
> later about METViewer concerns. I do think we'll want to eventually
> compare VSDB vs MET output using METViewer, but that seems to be a
down the
> road issue (though not too far down the road, so if there is a
METViewer
> update coming up, put this in it).
>
> Thanks!
>
> Perry
>
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 5:31 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> > Perry,
> >
> > On Monday, we decided that I should do the first (and very early)
beta
> > release of met-7.1 to get this feature to you for testing. But
this
> > version really shouldn't be used for anything other than testing.
Since
> > this is a beta version for 7.1, my inclination would be to
increment the
> > version number of the output now... to 7.1. The only downside is
that it
> > won't be possible to load 7.1 output in METViewer. The loader
will error
> > out and say that it doesn't know anything about version 7.1.
> >
> > If you need to be able to load this output into METViewer, we
should keep
> > the version number back at 7.0... but I'm really worried about
> version-itis
> > here. I don't want to create a confusing mess of output.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > John
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:57 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> > >
> > > Hi, John,
> > >
> > > I'm not sure I caught whether you have something for me to test
or not.
> > I
> > > think you were asking how to deliver these updates for ozone so
I guess
> > you
> > > need to deliver first before I can test anything.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > Perry
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Perry Shafran - NOAA Affiliate <
> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi, John,
> > > >
> > > > Super, thanks! Let me know if there are any aspects of it
that need
> > > > clarification.
> > > >
> > > > Perry
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:48 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Perry,
> > > >>
> > > >> Yes, I received it. Thanks for the info. I wrote up a
development
> > > ticket
> > > >> in JiRA to handle this and Howard Soh is taking a look at it.
I'll
> > let
> > > >> you
> > > >> know when we have an update for you.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> John
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:31 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT
<
> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Hi, John,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I was just wondering if you got this message regarding the
DHR in
> > the
> > > >> ozone
> > > >> > airnow file. I hadn't received any acknowledgement of it.
I
> think
> > > >> that if
> > > >> > we are going to read this data correctly for verification,
we'll
> > have
> > > >> to be
> > > >> > aware of this and use the DHR to add DHR to the file's
timestamp
> in
> > > >> order
> > > >> > to get the right ob at the right time.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thanks!
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Perry
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Perry Shafran - NOAA
Affiliate <
> > > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Hi, John,
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > For ozone (and for PM likely as well), the DHR will tell
you the
> > > time
> > > >> of
> > > >> > > the observation. The DHR ranges from -11 to 12 in each
file, so
> > if
> > > >> you
> > > >> > > have an observation with DHR of -10, for example, that
> > observations
> > > is
> > > >> > > valid at 02Z. I guess I should have done better to note
this to
> > you
> > > >> > > previously, but you will need this additional information
in
> order
> > > to
> > > >> get
> > > >> > > the valid time of the observation. My apologies for not
> realizing
> > > >> this
> > > >> > > sooner (like before 7.0 was released).
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > The 00Z valid time (as in your example), I just realized,
is a
> > > special
> > > >> > > case. Since the DHR ranges from -11 to 12, that means
that the
> > > valid
> > > >> > times
> > > >> > > in the file range from 01Z to 00Z the next day. That's
the
> reason
> > > for
> > > >> > this
> > > >> > > - it is indeed the 2017080912 <(201)%20708-0912> file but
this
> > > >> particular
> > > >> > > valid time is 2017081000 <(201)%20708-1000> because DHR
is 12 in
> > > this
> > > >> > > case. So that makes it extra special fun for verifying
for the
> > 00Z
> > > >> valid
> > > >> > > time, since we will have to go to the previous day's obs
file to
> > > >> verify
> > > >> > > that. Every other hour of the day, you won't see this
mismatch.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Perry
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:59 AM, John Halley Gotway via
RT <
> > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >> Perry,
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> Yes, I see that all the AWIP* GRIB2 files you sent me
are valid
> > at
> > > >> > >> 2017081000.
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> However, the point observations in the prepda.2017081000
are
> > valid
> > > >> at
> > > >> > >> 20170809_120000. Or at least that's what the output of
PB2NC
> > tells
> > > >> me!
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> The timestamps of the data contained in
prepda.2017081000 is
> > > >> 12-hours
> > > >> > >> earlier than the timestamp of that file indicates.
Here's a
> log
> > > >> message
> > > >> > >> from PB2NC listing out the "center time" for that file:
> > > >> > >> DEBUG 1: Processing Bufr File: prepda.2017081000
> > > >> > >> DEBUG 2: Bufr Time Center: 20170809_120000
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> Perhaps there's a problem in the naming convention for
that
> > > "prepda"
> > > >> > >> file... or perhaps there's a good reason for the 12-hour
> > offset...
> > > or
> > > >> > >> perhaps there's some problem in the MET code and we're
not
> > reading
> > > >> data
> > > >> > >> from that file correctly?
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> Thanks,
> > > >> > >> John
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:37 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov
via RT
> <
> > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > >
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > OK, thanks! So this is included in the latest MET
release. I
> > > think
> > > >> > >> there
> > > >> > >> > will definitely be other questions, if I want to be
able to
> > > verify
> > > >> > each
> > > >> > >> > hourly forecast of ozone with the observation. The
DHR tells
> > us
> > > >> which
> > > >> > >> hour
> > > >> > >> > that we are looking for to verify.
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > Perry
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:25 AM, John Halley Gotway
via RT <
> > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > Hi Perry,
> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > > We just posted the met-7.0 release yesterday. Julie
> > Prestopnik
> > > >> is
> > > >> > >> > actually
> > > >> > >> > > out at NCEP today, and she'll be the one to install
it on
> > > >> WCOSS. So
> > > >> > >> I'll
> > > >> > >> > > let her chime in to let us know when she's able to
do that.
> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > > Thanks,
> > > >> > >> > > John
> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:27 AM,
perry.shafran at noaa.gov via
> > RT
> > > <
> > > >> > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > I am able to start working on this today. Is this
> > available
> > > >> for
> > > >> > >> > testing
> > > >> > >> > > > now?
> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > Also I'm not entirely sure what you mean in that
the obs
> > and
> > > >> the
> > > >> > >> model
> > > >> > >> > > > don't match up well in time? In the example I
sent you,
> > you
> > > >> have
> > > >> > a
> > > >> > >> set
> > > >> > >> > > of
> > > >> > >> > > > observations and all the forecast files that
verify at
> that
> > > >> > >> particular
> > > >> > >> > > > time. Both the model and observed bufr file have
> 1-hourly
> > > >> fields
> > > >> > >> > (hourly
> > > >> > >> > > > fields of 1-hr and hourly fields of 8-hr ozone -
kind of
> > hard
> > > >> to
> > > >> > >> > imagine
> > > >> > >> > > > that, but they are just values). So we will also
need a
> > way
> > > to
> > > >> > >> match
> > > >> > >> > up
> > > >> > >> > > > the observed field with the modeled field at the
> > > corresponding
> > > >> > time.
> > > >> > >> > > (For
> > > >> > >> > > > example, matching the 3-hr forecast from the 12Z
model
> run
> > > with
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > >> 15Z
> > > >> > >> > > > observed field.)
> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > I think this is best achieved with a different
execution
> of
> > > >> > >> point_stat
> > > >> > >> > > for
> > > >> > >> > > > each individual hour, because that's how I do
gridtobs
> > > anyway.
> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > What are your thoughts on the above?
> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > Perry
> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:32 PM, John Halley Gotway
via
> RT <
> > > >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu
> > > >> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > Hi Perry,
> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > Howard Soh updated the logic in the PB2NC to
handle
> the 1
> > > and
> > > >> > >> 8-hour
> > > >> > >> > > COPO
> > > >> > >> > > > > observations in the way we discussed. I wanted
to let
> > you
> > > >> know
> > > >> > >> that
> > > >> > >> > I
> > > >> > >> > > > > tested it this afternoon and got some good
results.
> The
> > > >> sample
> > > >> > >> > > fcst/obs
> > > >> > >> > > > > data you sent doesn't line up well in time, so I
just
> > set a
> > > >> very
> > > >> > >> > large
> > > >> > >> > > > > matching time window in Point-Stat.
> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > Here's the relevant pieces of the Point-Stat
config
> file:
> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > fcst = {
> > > >> > >> > > > > field = [
> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "OZCON"; level = "A01"; },
> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "OZCON"; level = "A08"; }
> > > >> > >> > > > > ];
> > > >> > >> > > > > }
> > > >> > >> > > > > obs = {
> > > >> > >> > > > > message_type = [ "AIRNOW" ];
> > > >> > >> > > > > convert(x) = x*10^9;
> > > >> > >> > > > > field = [
> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level = "A01"; },
> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level = "A08"; }
> > > >> > >> > > > > ];
> > > >> > >> > > > > }
> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > And I'm just *guessing* at that conversion
factor. The
> > > >> > resulting
> > > >> > >> > > numbers
> > > >> > >> > > > > look about right, but its up to you to confirm.
Using
> > the
> > > >> > sample
> > > >> > >> > data
> > > >> > >> > > > you
> > > >> > >> > > > > sent me, this results in a mean error value of
12.64
> and
> > > >> 15.48
> > > >> > for
> > > >> > >> > the
> > > >> > >> > > 1
> > > >> > >> > > > > and 8-hour accums, respectively. But the
fcst/obs data
> > are
> > > >> > >> actually
> > > >> > >> > > > offset
> > > >> > >> > > > > by 12 hours so these numbers don't mean much,
other
> than
> > > >> > >> > demonstrating
> > > >> > >> > > > > there isn't a huge order of magnitude
difference.
> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > Thanks,
> > > >> > >> > > > > John
> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:06 PM, John Halley
Gotway <
> > > >> > >> johnhg at ucar.edu
> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > > Perry,
> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > > I think I prefer option 2 as well. I'll ask
Howard
> > Soh,
> > > >> one
> > > >> > of
> > > >> > >> the
> > > >> > >> > > > > > developers here, to add specific logic for the
AIRNOW
> > > >> message
> > > >> > >> type,
> > > >> > >> > > > > where...
> > > >> > >> > > > > > - level = absolute value of TPHR
> > > >> > >> > > > > > - qc flag = QCIND
> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > > John
> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:00 PM,
> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > >> via
> > > >> > RT
> > > >> > >> <
> > > >> > >> > > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Hi, John,
> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> What would be easier in comparing to the
model
> output,
> > > do
> > > >> you
> > > >> > >> > think?
> > > >> > >> > > > I
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> think that having it as some sort of
"accumulation
> > > >> variable"
> > > >> > >> (the
> > > >> > >> > > 2nd
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> option) would work.
> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> In the model, though, they are not listed as
either
> 1
> > or
> > > >> 8 hr
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> accumulations/averages. They are listed as
either,
> > for
> > > >> > example
> > > >> > >> > for
> > > >> > >> > > > the
> > > >> > >> > > > > 24
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> hr forecast, either "23-24 hr ave fcst" or
"16-24 hr
> > ave
> > > >> > fcst".
> > > >> > >> > > Would
> > > >> > >> > > > > be
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> easier if it said "1 hr ave fcst" or "8 hr
ave
> fcst",
> > > but
> > > >> > >> again,
> > > >> > >> > > > that's
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> not
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> what we got. So I'm guessing that might make
it a
> > > little
> > > >> > more
> > > >> > >> > > > > challenging
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> for the model to script up?
> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Perry
> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:50 PM, John Halley
Gotway
> > via
> > > >> RT <
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Perry,
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > I wanted to check how point observations of
precip
> > are
> > > >> > >> stored in
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> PrepBUFR
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > so I ran PB2NC on an old NDAS file using
the
> -index
> > > >> option.
> > > >> > >> > > Here's
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> what I
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > found:
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP06: TOTAL PRECIPITATION
PAST 6
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > HOURS types:
ADPSFC
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP24: TOTAL PRECIPITATION
PAST 24
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > HOURS types: ADPSFC
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > So basically, the accumulation interval
exists in
> > the
> > > >> > >> > observation
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> variable
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > name. Following that paradigm, if the
AIRNOW
> > > >> observations
> > > >> > >> were
> > > >> > >> > > > stored
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > using COPO01 and COPO08, then MET would
already be
> > > able
> > > >> to
> > > >> > >> > handle
> > > >> > >> > > > them
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > already. But I suppose we're likely stuck
with
> what
> > > >> we've
> > > >> > >> got.
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > I can see 2 ways we could handle this for
> processing
> > > >> AIRNOW
> > > >> > >> > > message
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > types...
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Option 1: Follow the precip example and
modify the
> > > >> > >> observation
> > > >> > >> > > > > variable
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > names by appending the TPHR value. Instead
of
> COPO,
> > > >> we'd
> > > >> > >> have
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> observations
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > named COPO01 and COPO08. And if we ever
see TPHR
> =
> > > -24,
> > > >> > >> that'd
> > > >> > >> > > > > produce
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> a
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > COPO24 variable name.
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Option 2: We could keep the COPO variable
name
> > > >> unchanged,
> > > >> > and
> > > >> > >> > > > instead
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> set
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the "level" value for these observations to
> indicate
> > > the
> > > >> > >> > > > accumulation
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > interval. If you look at the ascii2nc
usage
> > > statement,
> > > >> > >> you'll
> > > >> > >> > see
> > > >> > >> > > > the
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > following:
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > "Level" is the pressure level (hPa) or
> > accumulation
> > > >> > >> interval
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> (HH[MMSS]).
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > So we could use the value of TPHR to define
the
> > level
> > > >> as an
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> "accumulation"
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > interval.
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Either option could be made to work in MET.
Does
> > one
> > > >> make
> > > >> > >> more
> > > >> > >> > > > sense
> > > >> > >> > > > > to
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > you than the other?
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > While we're doing this, I assume we should
also
> > using
> > > >> the
> > > >> > >> QCIND
> > > >> > >> > > > value
> > > >> > >> > > > > to
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > populate the obs_qty (i.e. quality control)
> setting?
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > John
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:34 PM, John
Halley
> Gotway
> > <
> > > >> > >> > > > johnhg at ucar.edu>
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Perry,
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Until users dive into the details, we
won't know
> > > about
> > > >> > >> these
> > > >> > >> > > sorts
> > > >> > >> > > > > of
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> -1
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > vs -8 issues. But once we identify the
> > > requirements,
> > > >> we
> > > >> > >> can
> > > >> > >> > > > update
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > software to handle them.
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > So please keep the feedback coming.
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks,
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > John
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:31 PM,
> > > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > >> > >> via
> > > >> > >> > RT
> > > >> > >> > > <
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > >> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Hi, John,
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> OK, thanks! I thought the latest
version of
> MET
> > > >> that we
> > > >> > >> were
> > > >> > >> > > > using
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> was
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> configured for the air quality
applications?
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Perry
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:26 PM, John
Halley
> > Gotway
> > > >> via
> > > >> > >> RT <
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Perry,
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > I just grabbed them and ran the
forecast data
> > > >> through
> > > >> > >> the
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> plot_data_plane
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > utility. Looks like specifying the
level as
> an
> > > >> > >> > accumulation
> > > >> > >> > > > type
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> does
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> the
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > trick:
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_data_plane
> > > >> AWIP3D18.tm00
> > > >> > >> > > > > OZCON_1hr.ps
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A1";'
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_data_plane
> > > >> AWIP3D18.tm00
> > > >> > >> > > > > OZCON_8hr.ps
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A8";'
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > The resulting images are attached.
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Next, I ran pb2nc using the -index
option to
> > see
> > > a
> > > >> > >> > > description
> > > >> > >> > > > of
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > prepda contents:
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/pb2nc
> prepda.2017081000
> > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > >> > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > >> > >> > > > <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > prepda.2017081000.nc
> > > /usr/local/met-6.1/share/met/
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > config/PB2NCConfig_default
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > -index -log pb2nc_index.log
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Header variables:
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SID: STATION
IDENTIFICATION
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: XOB: LONGITUDE
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: YOB: LATITUDE
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: DHR: OBSERVATION TIME
MINUS
> > > CYCLE
> > > >> > TIME
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ELV:
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYP: PREPBUFR REPORT
TYPE
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: T29: DATA DUMP REPORT
TYPE
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ITP:
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Observation variables:
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: COPO: CONCENTRATION OF
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > POLLUTANT
> types:
> > > >> AIRNOW
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYPO: TYPE OF
POLLUTANT
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: CAT: PREPBUFR DATA
LEVEL
> > > CATEGORY
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: PROCN: PROCESS NUMBER
FOR THIS
> > MPI
> > > >> RUN
> > > >> > >> > > (OBTAINED
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> FROM
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > SCRIPT)
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SQN: REPORT SEQUENCE
NUMBER
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: QCIND: QUALITY CONTROL
> > INDICATION
> > > OF
> > > >> > >> > FOLLOWING
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DATA types: AIRNOW
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TSIG: TIME
SIGNIFICANCE
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: RPT: REPORTED
OBSERVATION
> TIME
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TPHR: TIME PERIOD OR
> > DISPLACEMENT
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > I see the COPO and TPHR observations
listed.
> > > We'll
> > > >> > >> need to
> > > >> > >> > > > > update
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > PB2NC code to handle the logic you've
> > described.
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > One option for specifying the 1 vs 8
hour
> > > >> difference
> > > >> > >> would
> > > >> > >> > be
> > > >> > >> > > > to
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> mimic
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> how
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > different precip accumulation
intervals are
> > > stored
> > > >> for
> > > >> > >> > > gauges.
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> I'll
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> look
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > more into how we might do that.
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Thanks,
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > John
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:17 PM,
> > > >> > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > >> > >> > via
> > > >> > >> > > > RT
> > > >> > >> > > > > <
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > >> > >> > > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Hi, John,
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > I was just wondering if you have
found and
> > > >> received
> > > >> > >> these
> > > >> > >> > > > > files.
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Thanks!
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Perry
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:30 AM,
Perry
> > > Shafran -
> > > >> > NOAA
> > > >> > >> > > > > Affiliate
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > I just transferred some model
files and
> an
> > ob
> > > >> file
> > > >> > >> here
> > > >> > >> > > on
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Theia.
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> All
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > these model files verify at the ob
time
> > here.
> > > >> > Have
> > > >> > >> a
> > > >> > >> > > look:
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > /scratch4/NCEPDEV/meso/save/
> > > >> > Perry.Shafran/for_john
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Perry
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 6:55 PM,
John
> > Halley
> > > >> > Gotway
> > > >> > >> via
> > > >> > >> > > RT
> > > >> > >> > > > <
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Hi Perry,
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Can you please point me to a
model
> output
> > > file
> > > >> > >> > > containing
> > > >> > >> > > > > the
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > OZCON
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> fields? Presumably, these are in
GRIB1
> > or 2
> > > >> > >> format,
> > > >> > >> > and
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > hopefully,
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> there's
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> some flag in the header that will
enable
> > us
> > > to
> > > >> > >> > > distinguish
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > between
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> the
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> GRIB
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> records containing 1 and 8 hour
> averages.
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> As for the point observations, I
suspect
> > > that
> > > >> > we'll
> > > >> > >> > need
> > > >> > >> > > > to
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> add
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> logic
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > to
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> PB2NC to distinguish between the
1 and 8
> > > hour
> > > >> > COPO
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > concentrations.
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Perhaps
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> we could update PB2NC to use the
TPHR
> > values
> > > >> to
> > > >> > >> > renamed
> > > >> > >> > > > COPO
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> to
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> COPO_1
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > and
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> COPO_8?
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Are these COPO point observations
> present
> > in
> > > >> NDAS
> > > >> > >> or
> > > >> > >> > > GDAS
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > PrepBUFR
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > files?
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> John
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:40 PM,
> > > >> > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > >> > >> > > > via
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> RT <
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Tue Feb 20 13:40:01 2018:
Request
> 84134
> > > was
> > > >> > acted
> > > >> > >> > > upon.
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Transaction: Ticket created by
> > > >> > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Queue: met_help
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Subject: verifying ozone
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Owner: Nobody
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Requestors:
perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Status: new
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Ticket <URL:
> > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Hi, everyone,
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I am helping the AQM group
verify
> ozone
> > > and
> > > >> I
> > > >> > >> need
> > > >> > >> > > some
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> assistance
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > in
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> using
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > PB2NC (and then later
point_stat, but
> > > let's
> > > >> > start
> > > >> > >> > with
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > PB2NC). I
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > need
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> to
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > be able to read in two
quantities from
> > the
> > > >> > >> prepbufr
> > > >> > >> > > file
> > > >> > >> > > > > and
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > then
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> combine
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > that to be able to compare to
the two
> > > model
> > > >> > >> items.
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the bufr file, the variables
at
> hand
> > > are
> > > >> > COPO
> > > >> > >> > (the
> > > >> > >> > > > > ozone
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> concentration),
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > and also TPHR. TPHR is either
-1 or
> -8
> > > >> > >> depending on
> > > >> > >> > > > > whether
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> observed
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > ozone is a 1-hr or 8-hr
average.
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In essence, we have two
entities here
> > > >> depending
> > > >> > >> on
> > > >> > >> > the
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> value of
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > TPHR:
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> the
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > 1-hr average ozone and the 8-hr
> average
> > > >> ozone.
> > > >> > >> But
> > > >> > >> > > they
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> have
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > same
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > value.
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the model we also have two
> variables.
> > > >> Both
> > > >> > >> are
> > > >> > >> > > > called
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > OZCON,
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> but
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > the
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > first one in the file is a 1-hr
> average
> > > and
> > > >> the
> > > >> > >> > second
> > > >> > >> > > > one
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> is
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 8-hr
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average.
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > The trick here is verifying 1-
hr
> average
> > > >> with
> > > >> > >> 1-hr
> > > >> > >> > > > > average,
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> and
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> 8-hr
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average with 8-hr average. I
think
> > there
> > > >> is a
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> multiplication
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> factor
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > in
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > there somewhere, as the obs are
in
> units
> > > of
> > > >> > >> > mole/mole,
> > > >> > >> > > > > while
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > model
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> is
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > in parts per billion (ppb).
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I don't know if you've spoken
with the
> > AQM
> > > >> team
> > > >> > >> on
> > > >> > >> > how
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> exactly
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> to do
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> this,
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > but I was hoping to help them
with
> this.
> > > If
> > > >> > you
> > > >> > >> can
> > > >> > >> > > > > advise
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> on
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> how
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > to
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > do
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > this, that would be great!
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Thanks!
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Perry
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: verifying ozone
From: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
Time: Mon Mar 19 07:42:40 2018
Hi, John,
Yes, the WCOSS dev machine (currently Tide) is best.
Hopefully once I get it installed I'll have some time for testing.
Are
there instructions provided on how to use the new AIRNOW capabilities?
And plus there will be new questions, after I get PB2NC squared away.
1) Matching the ozone observations to the modeled ozone in
point_stat.
2) Doing the summing needed and matching for the daily 4Z-4Z ozone
max.
(This is the stuff you may have worked on w/Jeff McQueen and his
group.)
3) Doing it all over again for PM (particulate matter), which is yet
a
different bufr file and ob type (ANOWPM).
Thanks for all your assistance!
Perry
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 5:41 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> Perry and Julie,
>
> I just created a met-7.1_beta1 release to enable Perry to do the
testing he
> needs.
>
> I posted the tarball to the MET website:
>
> www.dtcenter.org/met/users/downloads/MET_releases/met-7.
> 1_beta1.20180316.tar.gz
>
> Perry, I assume it'd be most convenient for you to have this
available on
> WCOSS for testing? If not, please let us know where.
>
> Julie, assuming Perry wants it on the dev side of WCOSS, can you
please
> install it in your personal area, and tell Perry how he can access
it?
>
> Here's the very short list of changes included in met-7.1_beta1
(taken from
> the top-level README file):
>
> Version 7.1 BETA 1 Release Notes:
> --------------------------------
>
> - Make logic for finding matching UGRD/VGRD verification tasks more
robust
> in
> Point-Stat and Grid-Stat.
> - Fix PB2NC's computation of valid time for AIRNOW observations.
> - Minor bugfix for Series-Analysis when computing min/max timing
info for
> series with some missing input files.
> - Enable vld_thresh = 0 in Ensemble-Stat and Series-Analysis.
> - Update pntnc2ascii.R Rscript to handle obs_var variable.
>
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 6:46 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> >
> > Hi, John,
> >
> > At this point my main concern is the ability to run MET and get
good MET
> > output on some of the air quality items. Then once that's done,
worry
> > later about METViewer concerns. I do think we'll want to
eventually
> > compare VSDB vs MET output using METViewer, but that seems to be a
down
> the
> > road issue (though not too far down the road, so if there is a
METViewer
> > update coming up, put this in it).
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Perry
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 5:31 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Perry,
> > >
> > > On Monday, we decided that I should do the first (and very
early) beta
> > > release of met-7.1 to get this feature to you for testing. But
this
> > > version really shouldn't be used for anything other than
testing.
> Since
> > > this is a beta version for 7.1, my inclination would be to
increment
> the
> > > version number of the output now... to 7.1. The only downside
is that
> it
> > > won't be possible to load 7.1 output in METViewer. The loader
will
> error
> > > out and say that it doesn't know anything about version 7.1.
> > >
> > > If you need to be able to load this output into METViewer, we
should
> keep
> > > the version number back at 7.0... but I'm really worried about
> > version-itis
> > > here. I don't want to create a confusing mess of output.
> > >
> > > Any thoughts?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > John
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:57 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT
<
> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
>
> > > >
> > > > Hi, John,
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure I caught whether you have something for me to
test or
> not.
> > > I
> > > > think you were asking how to deliver these updates for ozone
so I
> guess
> > > you
> > > > need to deliver first before I can test anything.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > Perry
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Perry Shafran - NOAA Affiliate
<
> > > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi, John,
> > > > >
> > > > > Super, thanks! Let me know if there are any aspects of it
that
> need
> > > > > clarification.
> > > > >
> > > > > Perry
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:48 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Perry,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Yes, I received it. Thanks for the info. I wrote up a
> development
> > > > ticket
> > > > >> in JiRA to handle this and Howard Soh is taking a look at
it.
> I'll
> > > let
> > > > >> you
> > > > >> know when we have an update for you.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > >> John
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:31 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via
RT <
> > > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Hi, John,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I was just wondering if you got this message regarding
the DHR
> in
> > > the
> > > > >> ozone
> > > > >> > airnow file. I hadn't received any acknowledgement of
it. I
> > think
> > > > >> that if
> > > > >> > we are going to read this data correctly for
verification, we'll
> > > have
> > > > >> to be
> > > > >> > aware of this and use the DHR to add DHR to the file's
timestamp
> > in
> > > > >> order
> > > > >> > to get the right ob at the right time.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Thanks!
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Perry
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Perry Shafran - NOAA
Affiliate
> <
> > > > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > Hi, John,
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > For ozone (and for PM likely as well), the DHR will
tell you
> the
> > > > time
> > > > >> of
> > > > >> > > the observation. The DHR ranges from -11 to 12 in each
file,
> so
> > > if
> > > > >> you
> > > > >> > > have an observation with DHR of -10, for example, that
> > > observations
> > > > is
> > > > >> > > valid at 02Z. I guess I should have done better to
note this
> to
> > > you
> > > > >> > > previously, but you will need this additional
information in
> > order
> > > > to
> > > > >> get
> > > > >> > > the valid time of the observation. My apologies for
not
> > realizing
> > > > >> this
> > > > >> > > sooner (like before 7.0 was released).
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > The 00Z valid time (as in your example), I just
realized, is a
> > > > special
> > > > >> > > case. Since the DHR ranges from -11 to 12, that means
that
> the
> > > > valid
> > > > >> > times
> > > > >> > > in the file range from 01Z to 00Z the next day. That's
the
> > reason
> > > > for
> > > > >> > this
> > > > >> > > - it is indeed the 2017080912 <(201)%20708-0912> file
but this
> > > > >> particular
> > > > >> > > valid time is 2017081000 <(201)%20708-1000> because DHR
is 12
> in
> > > > this
> > > > >> > > case. So that makes it extra special fun for verifying
for
> the
> > > 00Z
> > > > >> valid
> > > > >> > > time, since we will have to go to the previous day's
obs file
> to
> > > > >> verify
> > > > >> > > that. Every other hour of the day, you won't see this
> mismatch.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Perry
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:59 AM, John Halley Gotway via
RT <
> > > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> Perry,
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> Yes, I see that all the AWIP* GRIB2 files you sent me
are
> valid
> > > at
> > > > >> > >> 2017081000.
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> However, the point observations in the
prepda.2017081000 are
> > > valid
> > > > >> at
> > > > >> > >> 20170809_120000. Or at least that's what the output
of PB2NC
> > > tells
> > > > >> me!
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> The timestamps of the data contained in
prepda.2017081000 is
> > > > >> 12-hours
> > > > >> > >> earlier than the timestamp of that file indicates.
Here's a
> > log
> > > > >> message
> > > > >> > >> from PB2NC listing out the "center time" for that
file:
> > > > >> > >> DEBUG 1: Processing Bufr File: prepda.2017081000
> > > > >> > >> DEBUG 2: Bufr Time Center: 20170809_120000
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> Perhaps there's a problem in the naming convention for
that
> > > > "prepda"
> > > > >> > >> file... or perhaps there's a good reason for the 12-
hour
> > > offset...
> > > > or
> > > > >> > >> perhaps there's some problem in the MET code and we're
not
> > > reading
> > > > >> data
> > > > >> > >> from that file correctly?
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> Thanks,
> > > > >> > >> John
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:37 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov
via
> RT
> > <
> > > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > >
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > OK, thanks! So this is included in the latest MET
> release. I
> > > > think
> > > > >> > >> there
> > > > >> > >> > will definitely be other questions, if I want to be
able to
> > > > verify
> > > > >> > each
> > > > >> > >> > hourly forecast of ozone with the observation. The
DHR
> tells
> > > us
> > > > >> which
> > > > >> > >> hour
> > > > >> > >> > that we are looking for to verify.
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > Perry
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:25 AM, John Halley Gotway
via RT
> <
> > > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > Hi Perry,
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > We just posted the met-7.0 release yesterday.
Julie
> > > Prestopnik
> > > > >> is
> > > > >> > >> > actually
> > > > >> > >> > > out at NCEP today, and she'll be the one to
install it on
> > > > >> WCOSS. So
> > > > >> > >> I'll
> > > > >> > >> > > let her chime in to let us know when she's able to
do
> that.
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > Thanks,
> > > > >> > >> > > John
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:27 AM,
perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> via
> > > RT
> > > > <
> > > > >> > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > I am able to start working on this today. Is
this
> > > available
> > > > >> for
> > > > >> > >> > testing
> > > > >> > >> > > > now?
> > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > Also I'm not entirely sure what you mean in that
the
> obs
> > > and
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > >> model
> > > > >> > >> > > > don't match up well in time? In the example I
sent
> you,
> > > you
> > > > >> have
> > > > >> > a
> > > > >> > >> set
> > > > >> > >> > > of
> > > > >> > >> > > > observations and all the forecast files that
verify at
> > that
> > > > >> > >> particular
> > > > >> > >> > > > time. Both the model and observed bufr file
have
> > 1-hourly
> > > > >> fields
> > > > >> > >> > (hourly
> > > > >> > >> > > > fields of 1-hr and hourly fields of 8-hr ozone -
kind
> of
> > > hard
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> > >> > imagine
> > > > >> > >> > > > that, but they are just values). So we will
also need
> a
> > > way
> > > > to
> > > > >> > >> match
> > > > >> > >> > up
> > > > >> > >> > > > the observed field with the modeled field at the
> > > > corresponding
> > > > >> > time.
> > > > >> > >> > > (For
> > > > >> > >> > > > example, matching the 3-hr forecast from the 12Z
model
> > run
> > > > with
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > >> 15Z
> > > > >> > >> > > > observed field.)
> > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > I think this is best achieved with a different
> execution
> > of
> > > > >> > >> point_stat
> > > > >> > >> > > for
> > > > >> > >> > > > each individual hour, because that's how I do
gridtobs
> > > > anyway.
> > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > What are your thoughts on the above?
> > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
> > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > Perry
> > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:32 PM, John Halley
Gotway via
> > RT <
> > > > >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu
> > > > >> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > Hi Perry,
> > > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > Howard Soh updated the logic in the PB2NC to
handle
> > the 1
> > > > and
> > > > >> > >> 8-hour
> > > > >> > >> > > COPO
> > > > >> > >> > > > > observations in the way we discussed. I
wanted to
> let
> > > you
> > > > >> know
> > > > >> > >> that
> > > > >> > >> > I
> > > > >> > >> > > > > tested it this afternoon and got some good
results.
> > The
> > > > >> sample
> > > > >> > >> > > fcst/obs
> > > > >> > >> > > > > data you sent doesn't line up well in time, so
I just
> > > set a
> > > > >> very
> > > > >> > >> > large
> > > > >> > >> > > > > matching time window in Point-Stat.
> > > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > Here's the relevant pieces of the Point-Stat
config
> > file:
> > > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > fcst = {
> > > > >> > >> > > > > field = [
> > > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "OZCON"; level = "A01"; },
> > > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "OZCON"; level = "A08"; }
> > > > >> > >> > > > > ];
> > > > >> > >> > > > > }
> > > > >> > >> > > > > obs = {
> > > > >> > >> > > > > message_type = [ "AIRNOW" ];
> > > > >> > >> > > > > convert(x) = x*10^9;
> > > > >> > >> > > > > field = [
> > > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level = "A01"; },
> > > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level = "A08"; }
> > > > >> > >> > > > > ];
> > > > >> > >> > > > > }
> > > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > And I'm just *guessing* at that conversion
factor.
> The
> > > > >> > resulting
> > > > >> > >> > > numbers
> > > > >> > >> > > > > look about right, but its up to you to
confirm.
> Using
> > > the
> > > > >> > sample
> > > > >> > >> > data
> > > > >> > >> > > > you
> > > > >> > >> > > > > sent me, this results in a mean error value of
12.64
> > and
> > > > >> 15.48
> > > > >> > for
> > > > >> > >> > the
> > > > >> > >> > > 1
> > > > >> > >> > > > > and 8-hour accums, respectively. But the
fcst/obs
> data
> > > are
> > > > >> > >> actually
> > > > >> > >> > > > offset
> > > > >> > >> > > > > by 12 hours so these numbers don't mean much,
other
> > than
> > > > >> > >> > demonstrating
> > > > >> > >> > > > > there isn't a huge order of magnitude
difference.
> > > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >> > >> > > > > John
> > > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:06 PM, John Halley
Gotway <
> > > > >> > >> johnhg at ucar.edu
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > > Perry,
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > > I think I prefer option 2 as well. I'll ask
Howard
> > > Soh,
> > > > >> one
> > > > >> > of
> > > > >> > >> the
> > > > >> > >> > > > > > developers here, to add specific logic for
the
> AIRNOW
> > > > >> message
> > > > >> > >> type,
> > > > >> > >> > > > > where...
> > > > >> > >> > > > > > - level = absolute value of TPHR
> > > > >> > >> > > > > > - qc flag = QCIND
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > > John
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:00 PM,
> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > >> via
> > > > >> > RT
> > > > >> > >> <
> > > > >> > >> > > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> Hi, John,
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> What would be easier in comparing to the
model
> > output,
> > > > do
> > > > >> you
> > > > >> > >> > think?
> > > > >> > >> > > > I
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> think that having it as some sort of
"accumulation
> > > > >> variable"
> > > > >> > >> (the
> > > > >> > >> > > 2nd
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> option) would work.
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> In the model, though, they are not listed
as
> either
> > 1
> > > or
> > > > >> 8 hr
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> accumulations/averages. They are listed as
> either,
> > > for
> > > > >> > example
> > > > >> > >> > for
> > > > >> > >> > > > the
> > > > >> > >> > > > > 24
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> hr forecast, either "23-24 hr ave fcst" or
"16-24
> hr
> > > ave
> > > > >> > fcst".
> > > > >> > >> > > Would
> > > > >> > >> > > > > be
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> easier if it said "1 hr ave fcst" or "8 hr
ave
> > fcst",
> > > > but
> > > > >> > >> again,
> > > > >> > >> > > > that's
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> not
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> what we got. So I'm guessing that might
make it a
> > > > little
> > > > >> > more
> > > > >> > >> > > > > challenging
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> for the model to script up?
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> Perry
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:50 PM, John
Halley
> Gotway
> > > via
> > > > >> RT <
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Perry,
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > I wanted to check how point observations
of
> precip
> > > are
> > > > >> > >> stored in
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> PrepBUFR
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > so I ran PB2NC on an old NDAS file using
the
> > -index
> > > > >> option.
> > > > >> > >> > > Here's
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> what I
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > found:
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP06: TOTAL PRECIPITATION
PAST 6
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > HOURS types:
ADPSFC
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP24: TOTAL PRECIPITATION
PAST
> 24
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > HOURS types:
ADPSFC
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > So basically, the accumulation interval
exists
> in
> > > the
> > > > >> > >> > observation
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> variable
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > name. Following that paradigm, if the
AIRNOW
> > > > >> observations
> > > > >> > >> were
> > > > >> > >> > > > stored
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > using COPO01 and COPO08, then MET would
already
> be
> > > > able
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> > >> > handle
> > > > >> > >> > > > them
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > already. But I suppose we're likely
stuck with
> > what
> > > > >> we've
> > > > >> > >> got.
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > I can see 2 ways we could handle this for
> > processing
> > > > >> AIRNOW
> > > > >> > >> > > message
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > types...
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Option 1: Follow the precip example and
modify
> the
> > > > >> > >> observation
> > > > >> > >> > > > > variable
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > names by appending the TPHR value.
Instead of
> > COPO,
> > > > >> we'd
> > > > >> > >> have
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> observations
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > named COPO01 and COPO08. And if we ever
see
> TPHR
> > =
> > > > -24,
> > > > >> > >> that'd
> > > > >> > >> > > > > produce
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> a
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > COPO24 variable name.
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Option 2: We could keep the COPO variable
name
> > > > >> unchanged,
> > > > >> > and
> > > > >> > >> > > > instead
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> set
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the "level" value for these observations
to
> > indicate
> > > > the
> > > > >> > >> > > > accumulation
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > interval. If you look at the ascii2nc
usage
> > > > statement,
> > > > >> > >> you'll
> > > > >> > >> > see
> > > > >> > >> > > > the
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > following:
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > "Level" is the pressure level (hPa) or
> > > accumulation
> > > > >> > >> interval
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> (HH[MMSS]).
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > So we could use the value of TPHR to
define the
> > > level
> > > > >> as an
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> "accumulation"
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > interval.
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Either option could be made to work in
MET.
> Does
> > > one
> > > > >> make
> > > > >> > >> more
> > > > >> > >> > > > sense
> > > > >> > >> > > > > to
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > you than the other?
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > While we're doing this, I assume we
should also
> > > using
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > >> QCIND
> > > > >> > >> > > > value
> > > > >> > >> > > > > to
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > populate the obs_qty (i.e. quality
control)
> > setting?
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > John
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:34 PM, John
Halley
> > Gotway
> > > <
> > > > >> > >> > > > johnhg at ucar.edu>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Perry,
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Until users dive into the details, we
won't
> know
> > > > about
> > > > >> > >> these
> > > > >> > >> > > sorts
> > > > >> > >> > > > > of
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> -1
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > vs -8 issues. But once we identify the
> > > > requirements,
> > > > >> we
> > > > >> > >> can
> > > > >> > >> > > > update
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > software to handle them.
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > So please keep the feedback coming.
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks,
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > John
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:31 PM,
> > > > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > >> > >> via
> > > > >> > >> > RT
> > > > >> > >> > > <
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > >> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Hi, John,
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> OK, thanks! I thought the latest
version of
> > MET
> > > > >> that we
> > > > >> > >> were
> > > > >> > >> > > > using
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> was
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> configured for the air quality
applications?
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Perry
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:26 PM, John
Halley
> > > Gotway
> > > > >> via
> > > > >> > >> RT <
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Perry,
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > I just grabbed them and ran the
forecast
> data
> > > > >> through
> > > > >> > >> the
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> plot_data_plane
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > utility. Looks like specifying the
level
> as
> > an
> > > > >> > >> > accumulation
> > > > >> > >> > > > type
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> does
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> the
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > trick:
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-
6.1/bin/plot_data_plane
> > > > >> AWIP3D18.tm00
> > > > >> > >> > > > > OZCON_1hr.ps
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A1";'
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-
6.1/bin/plot_data_plane
> > > > >> AWIP3D18.tm00
> > > > >> > >> > > > > OZCON_8hr.ps
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A8";'
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > The resulting images are attached.
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Next, I ran pb2nc using the -index
option
> to
> > > see
> > > > a
> > > > >> > >> > > description
> > > > >> > >> > > > of
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > prepda contents:
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/pb2nc
> > prepda.2017081000
> > > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > >> > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > >> > >> > > > <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > prepda.2017081000.nc
> > > > /usr/local/met-6.1/share/met/
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > config/PB2NCConfig_default
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > -index -log pb2nc_index.log
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Header variables:
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SID: STATION
> IDENTIFICATION
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: XOB: LONGITUDE
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: YOB: LATITUDE
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: DHR: OBSERVATION
TIME
> MINUS
> > > > CYCLE
> > > > >> > TIME
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ELV:
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYP: PREPBUFR
REPORT TYPE
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: T29: DATA DUMP
REPORT TYPE
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ITP:
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Observation variables:
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: COPO: CONCENTRATION
OF
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > POLLUTANT
> > types:
> > > > >> AIRNOW
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYPO: TYPE OF
POLLUTANT
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: CAT: PREPBUFR DATA
LEVEL
> > > > CATEGORY
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: PROCN: PROCESS NUMBER
FOR
> THIS
> > > MPI
> > > > >> RUN
> > > > >> > >> > > (OBTAINED
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> FROM
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > SCRIPT)
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SQN: REPORT
SEQUENCE
> NUMBER
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: QCIND: QUALITY
CONTROL
> > > INDICATION
> > > > OF
> > > > >> > >> > FOLLOWING
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DATA types: AIRNOW
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TSIG: TIME
SIGNIFICANCE
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: RPT: REPORTED
OBSERVATION
> > TIME
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TPHR: TIME PERIOD OR
> > > DISPLACEMENT
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > I see the COPO and TPHR observations
> listed.
> > > > We'll
> > > > >> > >> need to
> > > > >> > >> > > > > update
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > PB2NC code to handle the logic
you've
> > > described.
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > One option for specifying the 1 vs 8
hour
> > > > >> difference
> > > > >> > >> would
> > > > >> > >> > be
> > > > >> > >> > > > to
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> mimic
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> how
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > different precip accumulation
intervals are
> > > > stored
> > > > >> for
> > > > >> > >> > > gauges.
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> I'll
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> look
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > more into how we might do that.
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Thanks,
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > John
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:17 PM,
> > > > >> > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > >> > >> > via
> > > > >> > >> > > > RT
> > > > >> > >> > > > > <
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > >> > >> > > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Hi, John,
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > I was just wondering if you have
found
> and
> > > > >> received
> > > > >> > >> these
> > > > >> > >> > > > > files.
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Thanks!
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Perry
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:30 AM,
Perry
> > > > Shafran -
> > > > >> > NOAA
> > > > >> > >> > > > > Affiliate
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> <
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > I just transferred some model
files and
> > an
> > > ob
> > > > >> file
> > > > >> > >> here
> > > > >> > >> > > on
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> Theia.
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> All
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > these model files verify at the
ob time
> > > here.
> > > > >> > Have
> > > > >> > >> a
> > > > >> > >> > > look:
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > /scratch4/NCEPDEV/meso/save/
> > > > >> > Perry.Shafran/for_john
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Perry
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 6:55 PM,
John
> > > Halley
> > > > >> > Gotway
> > > > >> > >> via
> > > > >> > >> > > RT
> > > > >> > >> > > > <
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Hi Perry,
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Can you please point me to a
model
> > output
> > > > file
> > > > >> > >> > > containing
> > > > >> > >> > > > > the
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > OZCON
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> fields? Presumably, these are
in
> GRIB1
> > > or 2
> > > > >> > >> format,
> > > > >> > >> > and
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > hopefully,
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> there's
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> some flag in the header that
will
> enable
> > > us
> > > > to
> > > > >> > >> > > distinguish
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > between
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> the
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> GRIB
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> records containing 1 and 8 hour
> > averages.
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> As for the point observations,
I
> suspect
> > > > that
> > > > >> > we'll
> > > > >> > >> > need
> > > > >> > >> > > > to
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> add
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> logic
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > to
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> PB2NC to distinguish between
the 1
> and 8
> > > > hour
> > > > >> > COPO
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > concentrations.
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Perhaps
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> we could update PB2NC to use
the TPHR
> > > values
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> > >> > renamed
> > > > >> > >> > > > COPO
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> to
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> COPO_1
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > and
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> COPO_8?
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Are these COPO point
observations
> > present
> > > in
> > > > >> NDAS
> > > > >> > >> or
> > > > >> > >> > > GDAS
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > PrepBUFR
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > files?
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Thanks,
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> John
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:40
PM,
> > > > >> > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > >> > >> > > > via
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> RT <
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Tue Feb 20 13:40:01 2018:
Request
> > 84134
> > > > was
> > > > >> > acted
> > > > >> > >> > > upon.
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Transaction: Ticket created
by
> > > > >> > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Queue: met_help
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Subject: verifying ozone
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Owner: Nobody
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Requestors:
> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Status: new
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Ticket <URL:
> > > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Hi, everyone,
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I am helping the AQM group
verify
> > ozone
> > > > and
> > > > >> I
> > > > >> > >> need
> > > > >> > >> > > some
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> assistance
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > in
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> using
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > PB2NC (and then later
point_stat,
> but
> > > > let's
> > > > >> > start
> > > > >> > >> > with
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > PB2NC). I
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > need
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> to
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > be able to read in two
quantities
> from
> > > the
> > > > >> > >> prepbufr
> > > > >> > >> > > file
> > > > >> > >> > > > > and
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > then
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> combine
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > that to be able to compare to
the
> two
> > > > model
> > > > >> > >> items.
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the bufr file, the
variables at
> > hand
> > > > are
> > > > >> > COPO
> > > > >> > >> > (the
> > > > >> > >> > > > > ozone
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> concentration),
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > and also TPHR. TPHR is
either -1 or
> > -8
> > > > >> > >> depending on
> > > > >> > >> > > > > whether
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> observed
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > ozone is a 1-hr or 8-hr
average.
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In essence, we have two
entities
> here
> > > > >> depending
> > > > >> > >> on
> > > > >> > >> > the
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> value of
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > TPHR:
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> the
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > 1-hr average ozone and the 8-
hr
> > average
> > > > >> ozone.
> > > > >> > >> But
> > > > >> > >> > > they
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> have
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > same
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > value.
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the model we also have two
> > variables.
> > > > >> Both
> > > > >> > >> are
> > > > >> > >> > > > called
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > OZCON,
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> but
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > the
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > first one in the file is a 1-
hr
> > average
> > > > and
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > >> > second
> > > > >> > >> > > > one
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> is
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 8-hr
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average.
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > The trick here is verifying
1-hr
> > average
> > > > >> with
> > > > >> > >> 1-hr
> > > > >> > >> > > > > average,
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> and
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> 8-hr
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average with 8-hr average. I
think
> > > there
> > > > >> is a
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> multiplication
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> factor
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > in
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > there somewhere, as the obs
are in
> > units
> > > > of
> > > > >> > >> > mole/mole,
> > > > >> > >> > > > > while
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > model
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> is
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > in parts per billion (ppb).
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I don't know if you've spoken
with
> the
> > > AQM
> > > > >> team
> > > > >> > >> on
> > > > >> > >> > how
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> exactly
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> to do
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> this,
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > but I was hoping to help them
with
> > this.
> > > > If
> > > > >> > you
> > > > >> > >> can
> > > > >> > >> > > > > advise
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> on
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> how
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > to
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > do
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > this, that would be great!
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Thanks!
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Perry
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: verifying ozone
From: Julie Prestopnik
Time: Mon Mar 19 12:50:01 2018
Hi Perry.
met-7.1_beta1 is now installed on tide. You can access it by running
the
following:
module use /global/noscrub/Julie.Prestopnik/modulefiles
module load met/7.1_beta1
Please let me know if you have any questions or encounter any
problems.
Thanks,
Julie
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 3:41 PM, John Halley Gotway <johnhg at ucar.edu>
wrote:
> Perry and Julie,
>
> I just created a met-7.1_beta1 release to enable Perry to do the
testing
> he needs.
>
> I posted the tarball to the MET website:
> www.dtcenter.org/met/users/downloads/MET_releases/met-7.
> 1_beta1.20180316.tar.gz
>
> Perry, I assume it'd be most convenient for you to have this
available on
> WCOSS for testing? If not, please let us know where.
>
> Julie, assuming Perry wants it on the dev side of WCOSS, can you
please
> install it in your personal area, and tell Perry how he can access
it?
>
> Here's the very short list of changes included in met-7.1_beta1
(taken
> from the top-level README file):
>
> Version 7.1 BETA 1 Release Notes:
> --------------------------------
>
> - Make logic for finding matching UGRD/VGRD verification tasks more
robust
> in
> Point-Stat and Grid-Stat.
> - Fix PB2NC's computation of valid time for AIRNOW observations.
> - Minor bugfix for Series-Analysis when computing min/max timing
info for
> series with some missing input files.
> - Enable vld_thresh = 0 in Ensemble-Stat and Series-Analysis.
> - Update pntnc2ascii.R Rscript to handle obs_var variable.
>
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 6:46 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
>>
>> Hi, John,
>>
>> At this point my main concern is the ability to run MET and get
good MET
>> output on some of the air quality items. Then once that's done,
worry
>> later about METViewer concerns. I do think we'll want to
eventually
>> compare VSDB vs MET output using METViewer, but that seems to be a
down
>> the
>> road issue (though not too far down the road, so if there is a
METViewer
>> update coming up, put this in it).
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Perry
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 5:31 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
>> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > Perry,
>> >
>> > On Monday, we decided that I should do the first (and very early)
beta
>> > release of met-7.1 to get this feature to you for testing. But
this
>> > version really shouldn't be used for anything other than testing.
Since
>> > this is a beta version for 7.1, my inclination would be to
increment the
>> > version number of the output now... to 7.1. The only downside is
that
>> it
>> > won't be possible to load 7.1 output in METViewer. The loader
will
>> error
>> > out and say that it doesn't know anything about version 7.1.
>> >
>> > If you need to be able to load this output into METViewer, we
should
>> keep
>> > the version number back at 7.0... but I'm really worried about
>> version-itis
>> > here. I don't want to create a confusing mess of output.
>> >
>> > Any thoughts?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > John
>> >
>> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:57 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
>> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
>> > >
>> > > Hi, John,
>> > >
>> > > I'm not sure I caught whether you have something for me to test
or
>> not.
>> > I
>> > > think you were asking how to deliver these updates for ozone so
I
>> guess
>> > you
>> > > need to deliver first before I can test anything.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks!
>> > >
>> > > Perry
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Perry Shafran - NOAA Affiliate
<
>> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Hi, John,
>> > > >
>> > > > Super, thanks! Let me know if there are any aspects of it
that need
>> > > > clarification.
>> > > >
>> > > > Perry
>> > > >
>> > > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:48 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
>> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> Perry,
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Yes, I received it. Thanks for the info. I wrote up a
development
>> > > ticket
>> > > >> in JiRA to handle this and Howard Soh is taking a look at
it. I'll
>> > let
>> > > >> you
>> > > >> know when we have an update for you.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Thanks,
>> > > >> John
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:31 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via
RT <
>> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Hi, John,
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > I was just wondering if you got this message regarding the
DHR in
>> > the
>> > > >> ozone
>> > > >> > airnow file. I hadn't received any acknowledgement of it.
I
>> think
>> > > >> that if
>> > > >> > we are going to read this data correctly for verification,
we'll
>> > have
>> > > >> to be
>> > > >> > aware of this and use the DHR to add DHR to the file's
timestamp
>> in
>> > > >> order
>> > > >> > to get the right ob at the right time.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Thanks!
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Perry
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Perry Shafran - NOAA
Affiliate <
>> > > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > > Hi, John,
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > For ozone (and for PM likely as well), the DHR will tell
you
>> the
>> > > time
>> > > >> of
>> > > >> > > the observation. The DHR ranges from -11 to 12 in each
file,
>> so
>> > if
>> > > >> you
>> > > >> > > have an observation with DHR of -10, for example, that
>> > observations
>> > > is
>> > > >> > > valid at 02Z. I guess I should have done better to note
this
>> to
>> > you
>> > > >> > > previously, but you will need this additional
information in
>> order
>> > > to
>> > > >> get
>> > > >> > > the valid time of the observation. My apologies for not
>> realizing
>> > > >> this
>> > > >> > > sooner (like before 7.0 was released).
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > The 00Z valid time (as in your example), I just
realized, is a
>> > > special
>> > > >> > > case. Since the DHR ranges from -11 to 12, that means
that the
>> > > valid
>> > > >> > times
>> > > >> > > in the file range from 01Z to 00Z the next day. That's
the
>> reason
>> > > for
>> > > >> > this
>> > > >> > > - it is indeed the 2017080912 <(201)%20708-0912>
>> <(201)%20708-0912> file but this
>> > > >> particular
>> > > >> > > valid time is 2017081000 <(201)%20708-1000>
>> <(201)%20708-1000> because DHR is 12 in
>> > > this
>> > > >> > > case. So that makes it extra special fun for verifying
for the
>> > 00Z
>> > > >> valid
>> > > >> > > time, since we will have to go to the previous day's obs
file
>> to
>> > > >> verify
>> > > >> > > that. Every other hour of the day, you won't see this
>> mismatch.
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > Perry
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:59 AM, John Halley Gotway via
RT <
>> > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > >> Perry,
>> > > >> > >>
>> > > >> > >> Yes, I see that all the AWIP* GRIB2 files you sent me
are
>> valid
>> > at
>> > > >> > >> 2017081000.
>> > > >> > >>
>> > > >> > >> However, the point observations in the
prepda.2017081000 are
>> > valid
>> > > >> at
>> > > >> > >> 20170809_120000. Or at least that's what the output of
PB2NC
>> > tells
>> > > >> me!
>> > > >> > >>
>> > > >> > >> The timestamps of the data contained in
prepda.2017081000 is
>> > > >> 12-hours
>> > > >> > >> earlier than the timestamp of that file indicates.
Here's a
>> log
>> > > >> message
>> > > >> > >> from PB2NC listing out the "center time" for that file:
>> > > >> > >> DEBUG 1: Processing Bufr File: prepda.2017081000
>> > > >> > >> DEBUG 2: Bufr Time Center: 20170809_120000
>> > > >> > >>
>> > > >> > >> Perhaps there's a problem in the naming convention for
that
>> > > "prepda"
>> > > >> > >> file... or perhaps there's a good reason for the 12-
hour
>> > offset...
>> > > or
>> > > >> > >> perhaps there's some problem in the MET code and we're
not
>> > reading
>> > > >> data
>> > > >> > >> from that file correctly?
>> > > >> > >>
>> > > >> > >> Thanks,
>> > > >> > >> John
>> > > >> > >>
>> > > >> > >>
>> > > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:37 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov
via
>> RT <
>> > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > > >> > >>
>> > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Tic
>> ket/Display.html?id=84134
>> > >
>> > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > OK, thanks! So this is included in the latest MET
release.
>> I
>> > > think
>> > > >> > >> there
>> > > >> > >> > will definitely be other questions, if I want to be
able to
>> > > verify
>> > > >> > each
>> > > >> > >> > hourly forecast of ozone with the observation. The
DHR
>> tells
>> > us
>> > > >> which
>> > > >> > >> hour
>> > > >> > >> > that we are looking for to verify.
>> > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > Perry
>> > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:25 AM, John Halley Gotway
via RT <
>> > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > Hi Perry,
>> > > >> > >> > >
>> > > >> > >> > > We just posted the met-7.0 release yesterday.
Julie
>> > Prestopnik
>> > > >> is
>> > > >> > >> > actually
>> > > >> > >> > > out at NCEP today, and she'll be the one to install
it on
>> > > >> WCOSS. So
>> > > >> > >> I'll
>> > > >> > >> > > let her chime in to let us know when she's able to
do
>> that.
>> > > >> > >> > >
>> > > >> > >> > > Thanks,
>> > > >> > >> > > John
>> > > >> > >> > >
>> > > >> > >> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:27 AM,
perry.shafran at noaa.gov
>> via
>> > RT
>> > > <
>> > > >> > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > > >> > >> > >
>> > > >> > >> > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
>> > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
>> > > >> > >> > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > I am able to start working on this today. Is
this
>> > available
>> > > >> for
>> > > >> > >> > testing
>> > > >> > >> > > > now?
>> > > >> > >> > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > Also I'm not entirely sure what you mean in that
the obs
>> > and
>> > > >> the
>> > > >> > >> model
>> > > >> > >> > > > don't match up well in time? In the example I
sent you,
>> > you
>> > > >> have
>> > > >> > a
>> > > >> > >> set
>> > > >> > >> > > of
>> > > >> > >> > > > observations and all the forecast files that
verify at
>> that
>> > > >> > >> particular
>> > > >> > >> > > > time. Both the model and observed bufr file have
>> 1-hourly
>> > > >> fields
>> > > >> > >> > (hourly
>> > > >> > >> > > > fields of 1-hr and hourly fields of 8-hr ozone -
kind of
>> > hard
>> > > >> to
>> > > >> > >> > imagine
>> > > >> > >> > > > that, but they are just values). So we will also
need a
>> > way
>> > > to
>> > > >> > >> match
>> > > >> > >> > up
>> > > >> > >> > > > the observed field with the modeled field at the
>> > > corresponding
>> > > >> > time.
>> > > >> > >> > > (For
>> > > >> > >> > > > example, matching the 3-hr forecast from the 12Z
model
>> run
>> > > with
>> > > >> > the
>> > > >> > >> 15Z
>> > > >> > >> > > > observed field.)
>> > > >> > >> > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > I think this is best achieved with a different
>> execution of
>> > > >> > >> point_stat
>> > > >> > >> > > for
>> > > >> > >> > > > each individual hour, because that's how I do
gridtobs
>> > > anyway.
>> > > >> > >> > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > What are your thoughts on the above?
>> > > >> > >> > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
>> > > >> > >> > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > Perry
>> > > >> > >> > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:32 PM, John Halley
Gotway via
>> RT <
>> > > >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu
>> > > >> > >> > > > > wrote:
>> > > >> > >> > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > Hi Perry,
>> > > >> > >> > > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > Howard Soh updated the logic in the PB2NC to
handle
>> the 1
>> > > and
>> > > >> > >> 8-hour
>> > > >> > >> > > COPO
>> > > >> > >> > > > > observations in the way we discussed. I wanted
to let
>> > you
>> > > >> know
>> > > >> > >> that
>> > > >> > >> > I
>> > > >> > >> > > > > tested it this afternoon and got some good
results.
>> The
>> > > >> sample
>> > > >> > >> > > fcst/obs
>> > > >> > >> > > > > data you sent doesn't line up well in time, so
I just
>> > set a
>> > > >> very
>> > > >> > >> > large
>> > > >> > >> > > > > matching time window in Point-Stat.
>> > > >> > >> > > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > Here's the relevant pieces of the Point-Stat
config
>> file:
>> > > >> > >> > > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > fcst = {
>> > > >> > >> > > > > field = [
>> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "OZCON"; level = "A01"; },
>> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "OZCON"; level = "A08"; }
>> > > >> > >> > > > > ];
>> > > >> > >> > > > > }
>> > > >> > >> > > > > obs = {
>> > > >> > >> > > > > message_type = [ "AIRNOW" ];
>> > > >> > >> > > > > convert(x) = x*10^9;
>> > > >> > >> > > > > field = [
>> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level = "A01"; },
>> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level = "A08"; }
>> > > >> > >> > > > > ];
>> > > >> > >> > > > > }
>> > > >> > >> > > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > And I'm just *guessing* at that conversion
factor.
>> The
>> > > >> > resulting
>> > > >> > >> > > numbers
>> > > >> > >> > > > > look about right, but its up to you to confirm.
Using
>> > the
>> > > >> > sample
>> > > >> > >> > data
>> > > >> > >> > > > you
>> > > >> > >> > > > > sent me, this results in a mean error value of
12.64
>> and
>> > > >> 15.48
>> > > >> > for
>> > > >> > >> > the
>> > > >> > >> > > 1
>> > > >> > >> > > > > and 8-hour accums, respectively. But the
fcst/obs
>> data
>> > are
>> > > >> > >> actually
>> > > >> > >> > > > offset
>> > > >> > >> > > > > by 12 hours so these numbers don't mean much,
other
>> than
>> > > >> > >> > demonstrating
>> > > >> > >> > > > > there isn't a huge order of magnitude
difference.
>> > > >> > >> > > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > Thanks,
>> > > >> > >> > > > > John
>> > > >> > >> > > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:06 PM, John Halley
Gotway <
>> > > >> > >> johnhg at ucar.edu
>> > > >> > >> > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > wrote:
>> > > >> > >> > > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > > Perry,
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > > I think I prefer option 2 as well. I'll ask
Howard
>> > Soh,
>> > > >> one
>> > > >> > of
>> > > >> > >> the
>> > > >> > >> > > > > > developers here, to add specific logic for
the
>> AIRNOW
>> > > >> message
>> > > >> > >> type,
>> > > >> > >> > > > > where...
>> > > >> > >> > > > > > - level = absolute value of TPHR
>> > > >> > >> > > > > > - qc flag = QCIND
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > > John
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:00 PM,
>> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
>> > > >> via
>> > > >> > RT
>> > > >> > >> <
>> > > >> > >> > > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
>> > > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
>> > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Hi, John,
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> What would be easier in comparing to the
model
>> output,
>> > > do
>> > > >> you
>> > > >> > >> > think?
>> > > >> > >> > > > I
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> think that having it as some sort of
"accumulation
>> > > >> variable"
>> > > >> > >> (the
>> > > >> > >> > > 2nd
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> option) would work.
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> In the model, though, they are not listed as
>> either 1
>> > or
>> > > >> 8 hr
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> accumulations/averages. They are listed as
either,
>> > for
>> > > >> > example
>> > > >> > >> > for
>> > > >> > >> > > > the
>> > > >> > >> > > > > 24
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> hr forecast, either "23-24 hr ave fcst" or
"16-24
>> hr
>> > ave
>> > > >> > fcst".
>> > > >> > >> > > Would
>> > > >> > >> > > > > be
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> easier if it said "1 hr ave fcst" or "8 hr
ave
>> fcst",
>> > > but
>> > > >> > >> again,
>> > > >> > >> > > > that's
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> not
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> what we got. So I'm guessing that might
make it a
>> > > little
>> > > >> > more
>> > > >> > >> > > > > challenging
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> for the model to script up?
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Perry
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:50 PM, John Halley
Gotway
>> > via
>> > > >> RT <
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Perry,
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > I wanted to check how point observations
of
>> precip
>> > are
>> > > >> > >> stored in
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> PrepBUFR
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > so I ran PB2NC on an old NDAS file using
the
>> -index
>> > > >> option.
>> > > >> > >> > > Here's
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> what I
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > found:
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP06: TOTAL PRECIPITATION
PAST 6
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > HOURS types:
ADPSFC
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP24: TOTAL PRECIPITATION
PAST 24
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > HOURS types:
ADPSFC
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > So basically, the accumulation interval
exists in
>> > the
>> > > >> > >> > observation
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> variable
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > name. Following that paradigm, if the
AIRNOW
>> > > >> observations
>> > > >> > >> were
>> > > >> > >> > > > stored
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > using COPO01 and COPO08, then MET would
already
>> be
>> > > able
>> > > >> to
>> > > >> > >> > handle
>> > > >> > >> > > > them
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > already. But I suppose we're likely stuck
with
>> what
>> > > >> we've
>> > > >> > >> got.
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > I can see 2 ways we could handle this for
>> processing
>> > > >> AIRNOW
>> > > >> > >> > > message
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > types...
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Option 1: Follow the precip example and
modify
>> the
>> > > >> > >> observation
>> > > >> > >> > > > > variable
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > names by appending the TPHR value.
Instead of
>> COPO,
>> > > >> we'd
>> > > >> > >> have
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> observations
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > named COPO01 and COPO08. And if we ever
see
>> TPHR =
>> > > -24,
>> > > >> > >> that'd
>> > > >> > >> > > > > produce
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> a
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > COPO24 variable name.
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Option 2: We could keep the COPO variable
name
>> > > >> unchanged,
>> > > >> > and
>> > > >> > >> > > > instead
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> set
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the "level" value for these observations
to
>> indicate
>> > > the
>> > > >> > >> > > > accumulation
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > interval. If you look at the ascii2nc
usage
>> > > statement,
>> > > >> > >> you'll
>> > > >> > >> > see
>> > > >> > >> > > > the
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > following:
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > "Level" is the pressure level (hPa) or
>> > accumulation
>> > > >> > >> interval
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> (HH[MMSS]).
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > So we could use the value of TPHR to
define the
>> > level
>> > > >> as an
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> "accumulation"
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > interval.
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Either option could be made to work in
MET. Does
>> > one
>> > > >> make
>> > > >> > >> more
>> > > >> > >> > > > sense
>> > > >> > >> > > > > to
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > you than the other?
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > While we're doing this, I assume we should
also
>> > using
>> > > >> the
>> > > >> > >> QCIND
>> > > >> > >> > > > value
>> > > >> > >> > > > > to
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > populate the obs_qty (i.e. quality
control)
>> setting?
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Thanks,
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > John
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:34 PM, John
Halley
>> Gotway
>> > <
>> > > >> > >> > > > johnhg at ucar.edu>
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > wrote:
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Perry,
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Until users dive into the details, we
won't
>> know
>> > > about
>> > > >> > >> these
>> > > >> > >> > > sorts
>> > > >> > >> > > > > of
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> -1
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > vs -8 issues. But once we identify the
>> > > requirements,
>> > > >> we
>> > > >> > >> can
>> > > >> > >> > > > update
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > software to handle them.
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > So please keep the feedback coming.
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks,
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > John
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:31 PM,
>> > > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
>> > > >> > >> via
>> > > >> > >> > RT
>> > > >> > >> > > <
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
>> > > >> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
>> > > >> > >> > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Hi, John,
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> OK, thanks! I thought the latest
version of
>> MET
>> > > >> that we
>> > > >> > >> were
>> > > >> > >> > > > using
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> was
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> configured for the air quality
applications?
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Perry
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:26 PM, John
Halley
>> > Gotway
>> > > >> via
>> > > >> > >> RT <
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Perry,
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > I just grabbed them and ran the
forecast
>> data
>> > > >> through
>> > > >> > >> the
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> plot_data_plane
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > utility. Looks like specifying the
level
>> as an
>> > > >> > >> > accumulation
>> > > >> > >> > > > type
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> does
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> the
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > trick:
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-
6.1/bin/plot_data_plane
>> > > >> AWIP3D18.tm00
>> > > >> > >> > > > > OZCON_1hr.ps
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A1";'
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-
6.1/bin/plot_data_plane
>> > > >> AWIP3D18.tm00
>> > > >> > >> > > > > OZCON_8hr.ps
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A8";'
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > The resulting images are attached.
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Next, I ran pb2nc using the -index
option to
>> > see
>> > > a
>> > > >> > >> > > description
>> > > >> > >> > > > of
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > prepda contents:
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/pb2nc prepda.
>> 2017081000 <(201)%20708-1000>
>> > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
>> > > >> > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
>> > > >> > >> > > > <(201)%20708-1000>
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > prepda.2017081000.nc
>> > > /usr/local/met-6.1/share/met/
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > config/PB2NCConfig_default
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > -index -log pb2nc_index.log
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Header variables:
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SID: STATION
IDENTIFICATION
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: XOB: LONGITUDE
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: YOB: LATITUDE
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: DHR: OBSERVATION
TIME MINUS
>> > > CYCLE
>> > > >> > TIME
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ELV:
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYP: PREPBUFR REPORT
TYPE
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: T29: DATA DUMP
REPORT TYPE
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ITP:
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Observation variables:
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: COPO: CONCENTRATION
OF
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > POLLUTANT
>> types:
>> > > >> AIRNOW
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYPO: TYPE OF
POLLUTANT
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: CAT: PREPBUFR DATA
LEVEL
>> > > CATEGORY
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: PROCN: PROCESS NUMBER
FOR
>> THIS
>> > MPI
>> > > >> RUN
>> > > >> > >> > > (OBTAINED
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> FROM
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > SCRIPT)
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SQN: REPORT SEQUENCE
NUMBER
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: QCIND: QUALITY CONTROL
>> > INDICATION
>> > > OF
>> > > >> > >> > FOLLOWING
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DATA types: AIRNOW
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TSIG: TIME
SIGNIFICANCE
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: RPT: REPORTED
OBSERVATION
>> TIME
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TPHR: TIME PERIOD OR
>> > DISPLACEMENT
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > I see the COPO and TPHR observations
listed.
>> > > We'll
>> > > >> > >> need to
>> > > >> > >> > > > > update
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > PB2NC code to handle the logic you've
>> > described.
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > One option for specifying the 1 vs 8
hour
>> > > >> difference
>> > > >> > >> would
>> > > >> > >> > be
>> > > >> > >> > > > to
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> mimic
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> how
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > different precip accumulation
intervals are
>> > > stored
>> > > >> for
>> > > >> > >> > > gauges.
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> I'll
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> look
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > more into how we might do that.
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Thanks,
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > John
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:17 PM,
>> > > >> > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
>> > > >> > >> > via
>> > > >> > >> > > > RT
>> > > >> > >> > > > > <
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
>> > > >> > >> > > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Hi, John,
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > I was just wondering if you have
found and
>> > > >> received
>> > > >> > >> these
>> > > >> > >> > > > > files.
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Thanks!
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Perry
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:30 AM,
Perry
>> > > Shafran -
>> > > >> > NOAA
>> > > >> > >> > > > > Affiliate
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > I just transferred some model
files and
>> an
>> > ob
>> > > >> file
>> > > >> > >> here
>> > > >> > >> > > on
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Theia.
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> All
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > these model files verify at the
ob time
>> > here.
>> > > >> > Have
>> > > >> > >> a
>> > > >> > >> > > look:
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > /scratch4/NCEPDEV/meso/save/
>> > > >> > Perry.Shafran/for_john
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Perry
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 6:55 PM,
John
>> > Halley
>> > > >> > Gotway
>> > > >> > >> via
>> > > >> > >> > > RT
>> > > >> > >> > > > <
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Hi Perry,
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Can you please point me to a
model
>> output
>> > > file
>> > > >> > >> > > containing
>> > > >> > >> > > > > the
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > OZCON
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> fields? Presumably, these are
in GRIB1
>> > or 2
>> > > >> > >> format,
>> > > >> > >> > and
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > hopefully,
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> there's
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> some flag in the header that
will
>> enable
>> > us
>> > > to
>> > > >> > >> > > distinguish
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > between
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> the
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> GRIB
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> records containing 1 and 8 hour
>> averages.
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> As for the point observations, I
>> suspect
>> > > that
>> > > >> > we'll
>> > > >> > >> > need
>> > > >> > >> > > > to
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> add
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> logic
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > to
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> PB2NC to distinguish between the
1 and
>> 8
>> > > hour
>> > > >> > COPO
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > concentrations.
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Perhaps
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> we could update PB2NC to use the
TPHR
>> > values
>> > > >> to
>> > > >> > >> > renamed
>> > > >> > >> > > > COPO
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> to
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> COPO_1
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > and
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> COPO_8?
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Are these COPO point
observations
>> present
>> > in
>> > > >> NDAS
>> > > >> > >> or
>> > > >> > >> > > GDAS
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > PrepBUFR
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > files?
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Thanks,
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> John
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:40 PM,
>> > > >> > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
>> > > >> > >> > > > via
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> RT <
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Tue Feb 20 13:40:01 2018:
Request
>> 84134
>> > > was
>> > > >> > acted
>> > > >> > >> > > upon.
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Transaction: Ticket created by
>> > > >> > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Queue: met_help
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Subject: verifying ozone
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Owner: Nobody
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Requestors:
perry.shafran at noaa.gov
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Status: new
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Ticket <URL:
>> > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Hi, everyone,
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I am helping the AQM group
verify
>> ozone
>> > > and
>> > > >> I
>> > > >> > >> need
>> > > >> > >> > > some
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> assistance
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > in
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> using
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > PB2NC (and then later
point_stat, but
>> > > let's
>> > > >> > start
>> > > >> > >> > with
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > PB2NC). I
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > need
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> to
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > be able to read in two
quantities
>> from
>> > the
>> > > >> > >> prepbufr
>> > > >> > >> > > file
>> > > >> > >> > > > > and
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > then
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> combine
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > that to be able to compare to
the two
>> > > model
>> > > >> > >> items.
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the bufr file, the
variables at
>> hand
>> > > are
>> > > >> > COPO
>> > > >> > >> > (the
>> > > >> > >> > > > > ozone
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> concentration),
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > and also TPHR. TPHR is either
-1 or
>> -8
>> > > >> > >> depending on
>> > > >> > >> > > > > whether
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> observed
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > ozone is a 1-hr or 8-hr
average.
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In essence, we have two
entities here
>> > > >> depending
>> > > >> > >> on
>> > > >> > >> > the
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> value of
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > TPHR:
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> the
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > 1-hr average ozone and the 8-
hr
>> average
>> > > >> ozone.
>> > > >> > >> But
>> > > >> > >> > > they
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> have
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > same
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > value.
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the model we also have two
>> variables.
>> > > >> Both
>> > > >> > >> are
>> > > >> > >> > > > called
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > OZCON,
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> but
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > the
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > first one in the file is a 1-
hr
>> average
>> > > and
>> > > >> the
>> > > >> > >> > second
>> > > >> > >> > > > one
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> is
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 8-hr
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average.
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > The trick here is verifying 1-
hr
>> average
>> > > >> with
>> > > >> > >> 1-hr
>> > > >> > >> > > > > average,
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> and
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> 8-hr
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average with 8-hr average. I
think
>> > there
>> > > >> is a
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> multiplication
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> factor
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > in
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > there somewhere, as the obs
are in
>> units
>> > > of
>> > > >> > >> > mole/mole,
>> > > >> > >> > > > > while
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > model
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> is
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > in parts per billion (ppb).
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I don't know if you've spoken
with
>> the
>> > AQM
>> > > >> team
>> > > >> > >> on
>> > > >> > >> > how
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> exactly
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> to do
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> this,
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > but I was hoping to help them
with
>> this.
>> > > If
>> > > >> > you
>> > > >> > >> can
>> > > >> > >> > > > > advise
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> on
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> how
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > to
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > do
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > this, that would be great!
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Thanks!
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Perry
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
>> > > >> > >> > > > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > >
>> > > >> > >> > > >
>> > > >> > >> > >
>> > > >> > >> > >
>> > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >>
>> > > >> > >>
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: verifying ozone
From: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
Time: Mon Mar 19 12:51:43 2018
Hi, Julie,
Thanks!
Perry
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 2:50 PM, Julie Prestopnik via RT
<met_help at ucar.edu>
wrote:
> Hi Perry.
>
> met-7.1_beta1 is now installed on tide. You can access it by
running the
> following:
>
> module use /global/noscrub/Julie.Prestopnik/modulefiles
> module load met/7.1_beta1
>
> Please let me know if you have any questions or encounter any
problems.
>
> Thanks,
> Julie
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 3:41 PM, John Halley Gotway
<johnhg at ucar.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > Perry and Julie,
> >
> > I just created a met-7.1_beta1 release to enable Perry to do the
testing
> > he needs.
> >
> > I posted the tarball to the MET website:
> > www.dtcenter.org/met/users/downloads/MET_releases/met-7.
> > 1_beta1.20180316.tar.gz
> >
> > Perry, I assume it'd be most convenient for you to have this
available on
> > WCOSS for testing? If not, please let us know where.
> >
> > Julie, assuming Perry wants it on the dev side of WCOSS, can you
please
> > install it in your personal area, and tell Perry how he can access
it?
> >
> > Here's the very short list of changes included in met-7.1_beta1
(taken
> > from the top-level README file):
> >
> > Version 7.1 BETA 1 Release Notes:
> > --------------------------------
> >
> > - Make logic for finding matching UGRD/VGRD verification tasks
more
> robust
> > in
> > Point-Stat and Grid-Stat.
> > - Fix PB2NC's computation of valid time for AIRNOW observations.
> > - Minor bugfix for Series-Analysis when computing min/max timing
info for
> > series with some missing input files.
> > - Enable vld_thresh = 0 in Ensemble-Stat and Series-Analysis.
> > - Update pntnc2ascii.R Rscript to handle obs_var variable.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > John
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 6:46 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> >>
> >> Hi, John,
> >>
> >> At this point my main concern is the ability to run MET and get
good MET
> >> output on some of the air quality items. Then once that's done,
worry
> >> later about METViewer concerns. I do think we'll want to
eventually
> >> compare VSDB vs MET output using METViewer, but that seems to be
a down
> >> the
> >> road issue (though not too far down the road, so if there is a
METViewer
> >> update coming up, put this in it).
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >> Perry
> >>
> >> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 5:31 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Perry,
> >> >
> >> > On Monday, we decided that I should do the first (and very
early) beta
> >> > release of met-7.1 to get this feature to you for testing. But
this
> >> > version really shouldn't be used for anything other than
testing.
> Since
> >> > this is a beta version for 7.1, my inclination would be to
increment
> the
> >> > version number of the output now... to 7.1. The only downside
is that
> >> it
> >> > won't be possible to load 7.1 output in METViewer. The loader
will
> >> error
> >> > out and say that it doesn't know anything about version 7.1.
> >> >
> >> > If you need to be able to load this output into METViewer, we
should
> >> keep
> >> > the version number back at 7.0... but I'm really worried about
> >> version-itis
> >> > here. I don't want to create a confusing mess of output.
> >> >
> >> > Any thoughts?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > John
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:57 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT
<
> >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
>
> >> > >
> >> > > Hi, John,
> >> > >
> >> > > I'm not sure I caught whether you have something for me to
test or
> >> not.
> >> > I
> >> > > think you were asking how to deliver these updates for ozone
so I
> >> guess
> >> > you
> >> > > need to deliver first before I can test anything.
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks!
> >> > >
> >> > > Perry
> >> > >
> >> > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Perry Shafran - NOAA
Affiliate <
> >> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Hi, John,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Super, thanks! Let me know if there are any aspects of it
that
> need
> >> > > > clarification.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Perry
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:48 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> Perry,
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Yes, I received it. Thanks for the info. I wrote up a
> development
> >> > > ticket
> >> > > >> in JiRA to handle this and Howard Soh is taking a look at
it.
> I'll
> >> > let
> >> > > >> you
> >> > > >> know when we have an update for you.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Thanks,
> >> > > >> John
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:31 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via
RT <
> >> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > Hi, John,
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > I was just wondering if you got this message regarding
the DHR
> in
> >> > the
> >> > > >> ozone
> >> > > >> > airnow file. I hadn't received any acknowledgement of
it. I
> >> think
> >> > > >> that if
> >> > > >> > we are going to read this data correctly for
verification,
> we'll
> >> > have
> >> > > >> to be
> >> > > >> > aware of this and use the DHR to add DHR to the file's
> timestamp
> >> in
> >> > > >> order
> >> > > >> > to get the right ob at the right time.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > Thanks!
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > Perry
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Perry Shafran - NOAA
> Affiliate <
> >> > > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > > Hi, John,
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > For ozone (and for PM likely as well), the DHR will
tell you
> >> the
> >> > > time
> >> > > >> of
> >> > > >> > > the observation. The DHR ranges from -11 to 12 in
each file,
> >> so
> >> > if
> >> > > >> you
> >> > > >> > > have an observation with DHR of -10, for example, that
> >> > observations
> >> > > is
> >> > > >> > > valid at 02Z. I guess I should have done better to
note this
> >> to
> >> > you
> >> > > >> > > previously, but you will need this additional
information in
> >> order
> >> > > to
> >> > > >> get
> >> > > >> > > the valid time of the observation. My apologies for
not
> >> realizing
> >> > > >> this
> >> > > >> > > sooner (like before 7.0 was released).
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > The 00Z valid time (as in your example), I just
realized, is
> a
> >> > > special
> >> > > >> > > case. Since the DHR ranges from -11 to 12, that means
that
> the
> >> > > valid
> >> > > >> > times
> >> > > >> > > in the file range from 01Z to 00Z the next day.
That's the
> >> reason
> >> > > for
> >> > > >> > this
> >> > > >> > > - it is indeed the 2017080912 <(201)%20708-0912>
> >> <(201)%20708-0912> file but this
> >> > > >> particular
> >> > > >> > > valid time is 2017081000 <(201)%20708-1000>
> >> <(201)%20708-1000> because DHR is 12 in
> >> > > this
> >> > > >> > > case. So that makes it extra special fun for
verifying for
> the
> >> > 00Z
> >> > > >> valid
> >> > > >> > > time, since we will have to go to the previous day's
obs file
> >> to
> >> > > >> verify
> >> > > >> > > that. Every other hour of the day, you won't see this
> >> mismatch.
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > Perry
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:59 AM, John Halley Gotway
via RT <
> >> > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > >> Perry,
> >> > > >> > >>
> >> > > >> > >> Yes, I see that all the AWIP* GRIB2 files you sent me
are
> >> valid
> >> > at
> >> > > >> > >> 2017081000.
> >> > > >> > >>
> >> > > >> > >> However, the point observations in the
prepda.2017081000
> are
> >> > valid
> >> > > >> at
> >> > > >> > >> 20170809_120000. Or at least that's what the output
of
> PB2NC
> >> > tells
> >> > > >> me!
> >> > > >> > >>
> >> > > >> > >> The timestamps of the data contained in
prepda.2017081000
> is
> >> > > >> 12-hours
> >> > > >> > >> earlier than the timestamp of that file indicates.
Here's a
> >> log
> >> > > >> message
> >> > > >> > >> from PB2NC listing out the "center time" for that
file:
> >> > > >> > >> DEBUG 1: Processing Bufr File: prepda.2017081000
> >> > > >> > >> DEBUG 2: Bufr Time Center: 20170809_120000
> >> > > >> > >>
> >> > > >> > >> Perhaps there's a problem in the naming convention
for that
> >> > > "prepda"
> >> > > >> > >> file... or perhaps there's a good reason for the 12-
hour
> >> > offset...
> >> > > or
> >> > > >> > >> perhaps there's some problem in the MET code and
we're not
> >> > reading
> >> > > >> data
> >> > > >> > >> from that file correctly?
> >> > > >> > >>
> >> > > >> > >> Thanks,
> >> > > >> > >> John
> >> > > >> > >>
> >> > > >> > >>
> >> > > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:37 AM,
perry.shafran at noaa.gov via
> >> RT <
> >> > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> > > >> > >>
> >> > > >> > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Tic
> >> ket/Display.html?id=84134
> >> > >
> >> > > >> > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > OK, thanks! So this is included in the latest MET
> release.
> >> I
> >> > > think
> >> > > >> > >> there
> >> > > >> > >> > will definitely be other questions, if I want to be
able
> to
> >> > > verify
> >> > > >> > each
> >> > > >> > >> > hourly forecast of ozone with the observation. The
DHR
> >> tells
> >> > us
> >> > > >> which
> >> > > >> > >> hour
> >> > > >> > >> > that we are looking for to verify.
> >> > > >> > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > Perry
> >> > > >> > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:25 AM, John Halley Gotway
via
> RT <
> >> > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> > > >> > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > Hi Perry,
> >> > > >> > >> > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > We just posted the met-7.0 release yesterday.
Julie
> >> > Prestopnik
> >> > > >> is
> >> > > >> > >> > actually
> >> > > >> > >> > > out at NCEP today, and she'll be the one to
install it
> on
> >> > > >> WCOSS. So
> >> > > >> > >> I'll
> >> > > >> > >> > > let her chime in to let us know when she's able
to do
> >> that.
> >> > > >> > >> > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > Thanks,
> >> > > >> > >> > > John
> >> > > >> > >> > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:27 AM,
perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> >> via
> >> > RT
> >> > > <
> >> > > >> > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> > > >> > >> > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> >> > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > I am able to start working on this today. Is
this
> >> > available
> >> > > >> for
> >> > > >> > >> > testing
> >> > > >> > >> > > > now?
> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > Also I'm not entirely sure what you mean in
that the
> obs
> >> > and
> >> > > >> the
> >> > > >> > >> model
> >> > > >> > >> > > > don't match up well in time? In the example I
sent
> you,
> >> > you
> >> > > >> have
> >> > > >> > a
> >> > > >> > >> set
> >> > > >> > >> > > of
> >> > > >> > >> > > > observations and all the forecast files that
verify at
> >> that
> >> > > >> > >> particular
> >> > > >> > >> > > > time. Both the model and observed bufr file
have
> >> 1-hourly
> >> > > >> fields
> >> > > >> > >> > (hourly
> >> > > >> > >> > > > fields of 1-hr and hourly fields of 8-hr ozone
- kind
> of
> >> > hard
> >> > > >> to
> >> > > >> > >> > imagine
> >> > > >> > >> > > > that, but they are just values). So we will
also
> need a
> >> > way
> >> > > to
> >> > > >> > >> match
> >> > > >> > >> > up
> >> > > >> > >> > > > the observed field with the modeled field at
the
> >> > > corresponding
> >> > > >> > time.
> >> > > >> > >> > > (For
> >> > > >> > >> > > > example, matching the 3-hr forecast from the
12Z model
> >> run
> >> > > with
> >> > > >> > the
> >> > > >> > >> 15Z
> >> > > >> > >> > > > observed field.)
> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > I think this is best achieved with a different
> >> execution of
> >> > > >> > >> point_stat
> >> > > >> > >> > > for
> >> > > >> > >> > > > each individual hour, because that's how I do
gridtobs
> >> > > anyway.
> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > What are your thoughts on the above?
> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > Perry
> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:32 PM, John Halley
Gotway via
> >> RT <
> >> > > >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Hi Perry,
> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Howard Soh updated the logic in the PB2NC to
handle
> >> the 1
> >> > > and
> >> > > >> > >> 8-hour
> >> > > >> > >> > > COPO
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > observations in the way we discussed. I
wanted to
> let
> >> > you
> >> > > >> know
> >> > > >> > >> that
> >> > > >> > >> > I
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > tested it this afternoon and got some good
results.
> >> The
> >> > > >> sample
> >> > > >> > >> > > fcst/obs
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > data you sent doesn't line up well in time,
so I
> just
> >> > set a
> >> > > >> very
> >> > > >> > >> > large
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > matching time window in Point-Stat.
> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Here's the relevant pieces of the Point-Stat
config
> >> file:
> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > fcst = {
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > field = [
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "OZCON"; level = "A01"; },
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "OZCON"; level = "A08"; }
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > ];
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > }
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > obs = {
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > message_type = [ "AIRNOW" ];
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > convert(x) = x*10^9;
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > field = [
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level = "A01"; },
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level = "A08"; }
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > ];
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > }
> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > And I'm just *guessing* at that conversion
factor.
> >> The
> >> > > >> > resulting
> >> > > >> > >> > > numbers
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > look about right, but its up to you to
confirm.
> Using
> >> > the
> >> > > >> > sample
> >> > > >> > >> > data
> >> > > >> > >> > > > you
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > sent me, this results in a mean error value
of 12.64
> >> and
> >> > > >> 15.48
> >> > > >> > for
> >> > > >> > >> > the
> >> > > >> > >> > > 1
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > and 8-hour accums, respectively. But the
fcst/obs
> >> data
> >> > are
> >> > > >> > >> actually
> >> > > >> > >> > > > offset
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > by 12 hours so these numbers don't mean much,
other
> >> than
> >> > > >> > >> > demonstrating
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > there isn't a huge order of magnitude
difference.
> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Thanks,
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > John
> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:06 PM, John Halley
Gotway
> <
> >> > > >> > >> johnhg at ucar.edu
> >> > > >> > >> > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > Perry,
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > I think I prefer option 2 as well. I'll
ask
> Howard
> >> > Soh,
> >> > > >> one
> >> > > >> > of
> >> > > >> > >> the
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > developers here, to add specific logic for
the
> >> AIRNOW
> >> > > >> message
> >> > > >> > >> type,
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > where...
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > - level = absolute value of TPHR
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > - qc flag = QCIND
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > John
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:00 PM,
> >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> >> > > >> via
> >> > > >> > RT
> >> > > >> > >> <
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> >> > > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> >> > > >> > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Hi, John,
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> What would be easier in comparing to the
model
> >> output,
> >> > > do
> >> > > >> you
> >> > > >> > >> > think?
> >> > > >> > >> > > > I
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> think that having it as some sort of
> "accumulation
> >> > > >> variable"
> >> > > >> > >> (the
> >> > > >> > >> > > 2nd
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> option) would work.
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> In the model, though, they are not listed
as
> >> either 1
> >> > or
> >> > > >> 8 hr
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> accumulations/averages. They are listed
as
> either,
> >> > for
> >> > > >> > example
> >> > > >> > >> > for
> >> > > >> > >> > > > the
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > 24
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> hr forecast, either "23-24 hr ave fcst" or
"16-24
> >> hr
> >> > ave
> >> > > >> > fcst".
> >> > > >> > >> > > Would
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > be
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> easier if it said "1 hr ave fcst" or "8 hr
ave
> >> fcst",
> >> > > but
> >> > > >> > >> again,
> >> > > >> > >> > > > that's
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> not
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> what we got. So I'm guessing that might
make it
> a
> >> > > little
> >> > > >> > more
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > challenging
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> for the model to script up?
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Perry
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:50 PM, John
Halley
> Gotway
> >> > via
> >> > > >> RT <
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Perry,
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > I wanted to check how point observations
of
> >> precip
> >> > are
> >> > > >> > >> stored in
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> PrepBUFR
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > so I ran PB2NC on an old NDAS file using
the
> >> -index
> >> > > >> option.
> >> > > >> > >> > > Here's
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> what I
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > found:
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP06: TOTAL
PRECIPITATION PAST
> 6
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > HOURS types:
ADPSFC
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP24: TOTAL
PRECIPITATION PAST
> 24
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > HOURS types:
ADPSFC
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > So basically, the accumulation interval
exists
> in
> >> > the
> >> > > >> > >> > observation
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> variable
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > name. Following that paradigm, if the
AIRNOW
> >> > > >> observations
> >> > > >> > >> were
> >> > > >> > >> > > > stored
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > using COPO01 and COPO08, then MET would
already
> >> be
> >> > > able
> >> > > >> to
> >> > > >> > >> > handle
> >> > > >> > >> > > > them
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > already. But I suppose we're likely
stuck with
> >> what
> >> > > >> we've
> >> > > >> > >> got.
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > I can see 2 ways we could handle this
for
> >> processing
> >> > > >> AIRNOW
> >> > > >> > >> > > message
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > types...
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Option 1: Follow the precip example and
modify
> >> the
> >> > > >> > >> observation
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > variable
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > names by appending the TPHR value.
Instead of
> >> COPO,
> >> > > >> we'd
> >> > > >> > >> have
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> observations
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > named COPO01 and COPO08. And if we ever
see
> >> TPHR =
> >> > > -24,
> >> > > >> > >> that'd
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > produce
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> a
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > COPO24 variable name.
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Option 2: We could keep the COPO
variable name
> >> > > >> unchanged,
> >> > > >> > and
> >> > > >> > >> > > > instead
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> set
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the "level" value for these observations
to
> >> indicate
> >> > > the
> >> > > >> > >> > > > accumulation
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > interval. If you look at the ascii2nc
usage
> >> > > statement,
> >> > > >> > >> you'll
> >> > > >> > >> > see
> >> > > >> > >> > > > the
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > following:
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > "Level" is the pressure level (hPa)
or
> >> > accumulation
> >> > > >> > >> interval
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> (HH[MMSS]).
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > So we could use the value of TPHR to
define the
> >> > level
> >> > > >> as an
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> "accumulation"
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > interval.
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Either option could be made to work in
MET.
> Does
> >> > one
> >> > > >> make
> >> > > >> > >> more
> >> > > >> > >> > > > sense
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > to
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > you than the other?
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > While we're doing this, I assume we
should also
> >> > using
> >> > > >> the
> >> > > >> > >> QCIND
> >> > > >> > >> > > > value
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > to
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > populate the obs_qty (i.e. quality
control)
> >> setting?
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Thanks,
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > John
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:34 PM, John
Halley
> >> Gotway
> >> > <
> >> > > >> > >> > > > johnhg at ucar.edu>
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > wrote:
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Perry,
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Until users dive into the details, we
won't
> >> know
> >> > > about
> >> > > >> > >> these
> >> > > >> > >> > > sorts
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > of
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> -1
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > vs -8 issues. But once we identify
the
> >> > > requirements,
> >> > > >> we
> >> > > >> > >> can
> >> > > >> > >> > > > update
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > software to handle them.
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > So please keep the feedback coming.
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks,
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > John
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:31 PM,
> >> > > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> >> > > >> > >> via
> >> > > >> > >> > RT
> >> > > >> > >> > > <
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> >> > > >> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Hi, John,
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> OK, thanks! I thought the latest
version of
> >> MET
> >> > > >> that we
> >> > > >> > >> were
> >> > > >> > >> > > > using
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> was
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> configured for the air quality
applications?
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Perry
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:26 PM, John
Halley
> >> > Gotway
> >> > > >> via
> >> > > >> > >> RT <
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Perry,
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > I just grabbed them and ran the
forecast
> >> data
> >> > > >> through
> >> > > >> > >> the
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> plot_data_plane
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > utility. Looks like specifying the
level
> >> as an
> >> > > >> > >> > accumulation
> >> > > >> > >> > > > type
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> does
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> the
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > trick:
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-
6.1/bin/plot_data_plane
> >> > > >> AWIP3D18.tm00
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > OZCON_1hr.ps
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A1";'
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-
6.1/bin/plot_data_plane
> >> > > >> AWIP3D18.tm00
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > OZCON_8hr.ps
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A8";'
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > The resulting images are attached.
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Next, I ran pb2nc using the -index
option
> to
> >> > see
> >> > > a
> >> > > >> > >> > > description
> >> > > >> > >> > > > of
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > prepda contents:
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/pb2nc
prepda.
> >> 2017081000 <(201)%20708-1000>
> >> > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> >> > > >> > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> >> > > >> > >> > > > <(201)%20708-1000>
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > prepda.2017081000.nc
> >> > > /usr/local/met-6.1/share/met/
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > config/PB2NCConfig_default
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > -index -log pb2nc_index.log
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Header variables:
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SID: STATION
> IDENTIFICATION
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: XOB: LONGITUDE
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: YOB: LATITUDE
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: DHR: OBSERVATION
TIME
> MINUS
> >> > > CYCLE
> >> > > >> > TIME
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ELV:
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYP: PREPBUFR
REPORT TYPE
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: T29: DATA DUMP
REPORT
> TYPE
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ITP:
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Observation variables:
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: COPO: CONCENTRATION
OF
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > POLLUTANT
> >> types:
> >> > > >> AIRNOW
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYPO: TYPE OF
POLLUTANT
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: CAT: PREPBUFR DATA
LEVEL
> >> > > CATEGORY
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: PROCN: PROCESS
NUMBER FOR
> >> THIS
> >> > MPI
> >> > > >> RUN
> >> > > >> > >> > > (OBTAINED
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> FROM
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > SCRIPT)
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SQN: REPORT
SEQUENCE
> NUMBER
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: QCIND: QUALITY
CONTROL
> >> > INDICATION
> >> > > OF
> >> > > >> > >> > FOLLOWING
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DATA types: AIRNOW
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TSIG: TIME
SIGNIFICANCE
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: RPT: REPORTED
OBSERVATION
> >> TIME
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TPHR: TIME PERIOD
OR
> >> > DISPLACEMENT
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > I see the COPO and TPHR
observations
> listed.
> >> > > We'll
> >> > > >> > >> need to
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > update
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > PB2NC code to handle the logic
you've
> >> > described.
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > One option for specifying the 1 vs
8 hour
> >> > > >> difference
> >> > > >> > >> would
> >> > > >> > >> > be
> >> > > >> > >> > > > to
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> mimic
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> how
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > different precip accumulation
intervals
> are
> >> > > stored
> >> > > >> for
> >> > > >> > >> > > gauges.
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> I'll
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> look
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > more into how we might do that.
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Thanks,
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > John
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:17 PM,
> >> > > >> > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> >> > > >> > >> > via
> >> > > >> > >> > > > RT
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > <
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> >> > > >> > >> > > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Hi, John,
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > I was just wondering if you have
found
> and
> >> > > >> received
> >> > > >> > >> these
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > files.
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Thanks!
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Perry
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:30 AM,
Perry
> >> > > Shafran -
> >> > > >> > NOAA
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Affiliate
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > I just transferred some model
files
> and
> >> an
> >> > ob
> >> > > >> file
> >> > > >> > >> here
> >> > > >> > >> > > on
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Theia.
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> All
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > these model files verify at the
ob
> time
> >> > here.
> >> > > >> > Have
> >> > > >> > >> a
> >> > > >> > >> > > look:
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > /scratch4/NCEPDEV/meso/save/
> >> > > >> > Perry.Shafran/for_john
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Perry
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 6:55
PM, John
> >> > Halley
> >> > > >> > Gotway
> >> > > >> > >> via
> >> > > >> > >> > > RT
> >> > > >> > >> > > > <
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Hi Perry,
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Can you please point me to a
model
> >> output
> >> > > file
> >> > > >> > >> > > containing
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > the
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > OZCON
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> fields? Presumably, these are
in
> GRIB1
> >> > or 2
> >> > > >> > >> format,
> >> > > >> > >> > and
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > hopefully,
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> there's
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> some flag in the header that
will
> >> enable
> >> > us
> >> > > to
> >> > > >> > >> > > distinguish
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > between
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> the
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> GRIB
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> records containing 1 and 8
hour
> >> averages.
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> As for the point observations,
I
> >> suspect
> >> > > that
> >> > > >> > we'll
> >> > > >> > >> > need
> >> > > >> > >> > > > to
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> add
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> logic
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > to
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> PB2NC to distinguish between
the 1
> and
> >> 8
> >> > > hour
> >> > > >> > COPO
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > concentrations.
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Perhaps
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> we could update PB2NC to use
the TPHR
> >> > values
> >> > > >> to
> >> > > >> > >> > renamed
> >> > > >> > >> > > > COPO
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> to
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> COPO_1
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > and
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> COPO_8?
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Are these COPO point
observations
> >> present
> >> > in
> >> > > >> NDAS
> >> > > >> > >> or
> >> > > >> > >> > > GDAS
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > PrepBUFR
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > files?
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Thanks,
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> John
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:40
PM,
> >> > > >> > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> >> > > >> > >> > > > via
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> RT <
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Tue Feb 20 13:40:01 2018:
Request
> >> 84134
> >> > > was
> >> > > >> > acted
> >> > > >> > >> > > upon.
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Transaction: Ticket created
by
> >> > > >> > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Queue: met_help
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Subject: verifying
ozone
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Owner: Nobody
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Requestors:
> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Status: new
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Ticket <URL:
> >> > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Hi, everyone,
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I am helping the AQM group
verify
> >> ozone
> >> > > and
> >> > > >> I
> >> > > >> > >> need
> >> > > >> > >> > > some
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> assistance
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > in
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> using
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > PB2NC (and then later
point_stat,
> but
> >> > > let's
> >> > > >> > start
> >> > > >> > >> > with
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > PB2NC). I
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > need
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> to
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > be able to read in two
quantities
> >> from
> >> > the
> >> > > >> > >> prepbufr
> >> > > >> > >> > > file
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > and
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > then
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> combine
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > that to be able to compare
to the
> two
> >> > > model
> >> > > >> > >> items.
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the bufr file, the
variables at
> >> hand
> >> > > are
> >> > > >> > COPO
> >> > > >> > >> > (the
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > ozone
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> concentration),
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > and also TPHR. TPHR is
either -1
> or
> >> -8
> >> > > >> > >> depending on
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > whether
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> observed
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > ozone is a 1-hr or 8-hr
average.
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In essence, we have two
entities
> here
> >> > > >> depending
> >> > > >> > >> on
> >> > > >> > >> > the
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> value of
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > TPHR:
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> the
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > 1-hr average ozone and the
8-hr
> >> average
> >> > > >> ozone.
> >> > > >> > >> But
> >> > > >> > >> > > they
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> have
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > same
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > value.
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the model we also have
two
> >> variables.
> >> > > >> Both
> >> > > >> > >> are
> >> > > >> > >> > > > called
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > OZCON,
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> but
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > the
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > first one in the file is a
1-hr
> >> average
> >> > > and
> >> > > >> the
> >> > > >> > >> > second
> >> > > >> > >> > > > one
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> is
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 8-hr
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average.
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > The trick here is verifying
1-hr
> >> average
> >> > > >> with
> >> > > >> > >> 1-hr
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > average,
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> and
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> 8-hr
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average with 8-hr average.
I think
> >> > there
> >> > > >> is a
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> multiplication
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> factor
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > in
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > there somewhere, as the obs
are in
> >> units
> >> > > of
> >> > > >> > >> > mole/mole,
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > while
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > model
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> is
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > in parts per billion (ppb).
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I don't know if you've
spoken with
> >> the
> >> > AQM
> >> > > >> team
> >> > > >> > >> on
> >> > > >> > >> > how
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> exactly
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> to do
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> this,
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > but I was hoping to help
them with
> >> this.
> >> > > If
> >> > > >> > you
> >> > > >> > >> can
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > advise
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> on
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> how
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > to
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > do
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > this, that would be great!
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Thanks!
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Perry
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > >> > >
> >> > > >> > >> > >
> >> > > >> > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> >
> >> > > >> > >>
> >> > > >> > >>
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: verifying ozone
From: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
Time: Wed Mar 21 14:28:47 2018
Hi there,
I am trying out the new 7.1 beta, and I got this error in both pb2nc
and
point_stat (except for point_stat replace the 146 in the error with
80):
terminate called after throwing an instance of
'netCDF::exceptions::NcBadId'
what(): NetCDF: Not a valid ID
file: ncVar.cpp line:146
/meso/save/Perry.Shafran/verif/nwtest/ush/verf_gridtobs_fits.sh[143]:
.:
line 217:
41145: Abort(coredump)
Any idea what the issue is here?
Thanks!
Perry
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Perry Shafran - NOAA Affiliate <
perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> Hi, Julie,
>
> Thanks!
>
> Perry
>
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 2:50 PM, Julie Prestopnik via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
>> Hi Perry.
>>
>> met-7.1_beta1 is now installed on tide. You can access it by
running the
>> following:
>>
>> module use /global/noscrub/Julie.Prestopnik/modulefiles
>> module load met/7.1_beta1
>>
>> Please let me know if you have any questions or encounter any
problems.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Julie
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 3:41 PM, John Halley Gotway
<johnhg at ucar.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Perry and Julie,
>> >
>> > I just created a met-7.1_beta1 release to enable Perry to do the
testing
>> > he needs.
>> >
>> > I posted the tarball to the MET website:
>> > www.dtcenter.org/met/users/downloads/MET_releases/met-7.
>> > 1_beta1.20180316.tar.gz
>> >
>> > Perry, I assume it'd be most convenient for you to have this
available
>> on
>> > WCOSS for testing? If not, please let us know where.
>> >
>> > Julie, assuming Perry wants it on the dev side of WCOSS, can you
please
>> > install it in your personal area, and tell Perry how he can
access it?
>> >
>> > Here's the very short list of changes included in met-7.1_beta1
(taken
>> > from the top-level README file):
>> >
>> > Version 7.1 BETA 1 Release Notes:
>> > --------------------------------
>> >
>> > - Make logic for finding matching UGRD/VGRD verification tasks
more
>> robust
>> > in
>> > Point-Stat and Grid-Stat.
>> > - Fix PB2NC's computation of valid time for AIRNOW observations.
>> > - Minor bugfix for Series-Analysis when computing min/max timing
info
>> for
>> > series with some missing input files.
>> > - Enable vld_thresh = 0 in Ensemble-Stat and Series-Analysis.
>> > - Update pntnc2ascii.R Rscript to handle obs_var variable.
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > John
>> >
>> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 6:46 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
>> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
>> >>
>> >> Hi, John,
>> >>
>> >> At this point my main concern is the ability to run MET and get
good
>> MET
>> >> output on some of the air quality items. Then once that's done,
worry
>> >> later about METViewer concerns. I do think we'll want to
eventually
>> >> compare VSDB vs MET output using METViewer, but that seems to be
a down
>> >> the
>> >> road issue (though not too far down the road, so if there is a
>> METViewer
>> >> update coming up, put this in it).
>> >>
>> >> Thanks!
>> >>
>> >> Perry
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 5:31 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
>> >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Perry,
>> >> >
>> >> > On Monday, we decided that I should do the first (and very
early)
>> beta
>> >> > release of met-7.1 to get this feature to you for testing.
But this
>> >> > version really shouldn't be used for anything other than
testing.
>> Since
>> >> > this is a beta version for 7.1, my inclination would be to
increment
>> the
>> >> > version number of the output now... to 7.1. The only downside
is
>> that
>> >> it
>> >> > won't be possible to load 7.1 output in METViewer. The loader
will
>> >> error
>> >> > out and say that it doesn't know anything about version 7.1.
>> >> >
>> >> > If you need to be able to load this output into METViewer, we
should
>> >> keep
>> >> > the version number back at 7.0... but I'm really worried about
>> >> version-itis
>> >> > here. I don't want to create a confusing mess of output.
>> >> >
>> >> > Any thoughts?
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> > John
>> >> >
>> >> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:57 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via
RT <
>> >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Hi, John,
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I'm not sure I caught whether you have something for me to
test or
>> >> not.
>> >> > I
>> >> > > think you were asking how to deliver these updates for ozone
so I
>> >> guess
>> >> > you
>> >> > > need to deliver first before I can test anything.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Thanks!
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Perry
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Perry Shafran - NOAA
Affiliate <
>> >> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > Hi, John,
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Super, thanks! Let me know if there are any aspects of it
that
>> need
>> >> > > > clarification.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Perry
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:48 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT
<
>> >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >> Perry,
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> Yes, I received it. Thanks for the info. I wrote up a
>> development
>> >> > > ticket
>> >> > > >> in JiRA to handle this and Howard Soh is taking a look at
it.
>> I'll
>> >> > let
>> >> > > >> you
>> >> > > >> know when we have an update for you.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> Thanks,
>> >> > > >> John
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:31 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov
via RT <
>> >> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
>> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > Hi, John,
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > I was just wondering if you got this message regarding
the
>> DHR in
>> >> > the
>> >> > > >> ozone
>> >> > > >> > airnow file. I hadn't received any acknowledgement of
it. I
>> >> think
>> >> > > >> that if
>> >> > > >> > we are going to read this data correctly for
verification,
>> we'll
>> >> > have
>> >> > > >> to be
>> >> > > >> > aware of this and use the DHR to add DHR to the file's
>> timestamp
>> >> in
>> >> > > >> order
>> >> > > >> > to get the right ob at the right time.
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > Thanks!
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > Perry
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Perry Shafran - NOAA
>> Affiliate <
>> >> > > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > > Hi, John,
>> >> > > >> > >
>> >> > > >> > > For ozone (and for PM likely as well), the DHR will
tell you
>> >> the
>> >> > > time
>> >> > > >> of
>> >> > > >> > > the observation. The DHR ranges from -11 to 12 in
each
>> file,
>> >> so
>> >> > if
>> >> > > >> you
>> >> > > >> > > have an observation with DHR of -10, for example,
that
>> >> > observations
>> >> > > is
>> >> > > >> > > valid at 02Z. I guess I should have done better to
note
>> this
>> >> to
>> >> > you
>> >> > > >> > > previously, but you will need this additional
information in
>> >> order
>> >> > > to
>> >> > > >> get
>> >> > > >> > > the valid time of the observation. My apologies for
not
>> >> realizing
>> >> > > >> this
>> >> > > >> > > sooner (like before 7.0 was released).
>> >> > > >> > >
>> >> > > >> > > The 00Z valid time (as in your example), I just
realized,
>> is a
>> >> > > special
>> >> > > >> > > case. Since the DHR ranges from -11 to 12, that
means that
>> the
>> >> > > valid
>> >> > > >> > times
>> >> > > >> > > in the file range from 01Z to 00Z the next day.
That's the
>> >> reason
>> >> > > for
>> >> > > >> > this
>> >> > > >> > > - it is indeed the 2017080912 <(201)%20708-0912>
>> <(201)%20708-0912>
>> >> <(201)%20708-0912> file but this
>> >> > > >> particular
>> >> > > >> > > valid time is 2017081000 <(201)%20708-1000>
>> <(201)%20708-1000>
>> >> <(201)%20708-1000> because DHR is 12 in
>> >> > > this
>> >> > > >> > > case. So that makes it extra special fun for
verifying for
>> the
>> >> > 00Z
>> >> > > >> valid
>> >> > > >> > > time, since we will have to go to the previous day's
obs
>> file
>> >> to
>> >> > > >> verify
>> >> > > >> > > that. Every other hour of the day, you won't see
this
>> >> mismatch.
>> >> > > >> > >
>> >> > > >> > > Perry
>> >> > > >> > >
>> >> > > >> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:59 AM, John Halley Gotway
via RT <
>> >> > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> >> > > >> > >
>> >> > > >> > >> Perry,
>> >> > > >> > >>
>> >> > > >> > >> Yes, I see that all the AWIP* GRIB2 files you sent
me are
>> >> valid
>> >> > at
>> >> > > >> > >> 2017081000.
>> >> > > >> > >>
>> >> > > >> > >> However, the point observations in the
prepda.2017081000
>> are
>> >> > valid
>> >> > > >> at
>> >> > > >> > >> 20170809_120000. Or at least that's what the output
of
>> PB2NC
>> >> > tells
>> >> > > >> me!
>> >> > > >> > >>
>> >> > > >> > >> The timestamps of the data contained in
prepda.2017081000
>> is
>> >> > > >> 12-hours
>> >> > > >> > >> earlier than the timestamp of that file indicates.
Here's
>> a
>> >> log
>> >> > > >> message
>> >> > > >> > >> from PB2NC listing out the "center time" for that
file:
>> >> > > >> > >> DEBUG 1: Processing Bufr File: prepda.2017081000
>> >> > > >> > >> DEBUG 2: Bufr Time Center: 20170809_120000
>> >> > > >> > >>
>> >> > > >> > >> Perhaps there's a problem in the naming convention
for that
>> >> > > "prepda"
>> >> > > >> > >> file... or perhaps there's a good reason for the 12-
hour
>> >> > offset...
>> >> > > or
>> >> > > >> > >> perhaps there's some problem in the MET code and
we're not
>> >> > reading
>> >> > > >> data
>> >> > > >> > >> from that file correctly?
>> >> > > >> > >>
>> >> > > >> > >> Thanks,
>> >> > > >> > >> John
>> >> > > >> > >>
>> >> > > >> > >>
>> >> > > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:37 AM,
perry.shafran at noaa.gov via
>> >> RT <
>> >> > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> >> > > >> > >>
>> >> > > >> > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Tic
>> >> ket/Display.html?id=84134
>> >> > >
>> >> > > >> > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > OK, thanks! So this is included in the latest MET
>> release.
>> >> I
>> >> > > think
>> >> > > >> > >> there
>> >> > > >> > >> > will definitely be other questions, if I want to
be able
>> to
>> >> > > verify
>> >> > > >> > each
>> >> > > >> > >> > hourly forecast of ozone with the observation.
The DHR
>> >> tells
>> >> > us
>> >> > > >> which
>> >> > > >> > >> hour
>> >> > > >> > >> > that we are looking for to verify.
>> >> > > >> > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > Perry
>> >> > > >> > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:25 AM, John Halley
Gotway via
>> RT <
>> >> > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> >> > > >> > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > Hi Perry,
>> >> > > >> > >> > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > We just posted the met-7.0 release yesterday.
Julie
>> >> > Prestopnik
>> >> > > >> is
>> >> > > >> > >> > actually
>> >> > > >> > >> > > out at NCEP today, and she'll be the one to
install it
>> on
>> >> > > >> WCOSS. So
>> >> > > >> > >> I'll
>> >> > > >> > >> > > let her chime in to let us know when she's able
to do
>> >> that.
>> >> > > >> > >> > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > Thanks,
>> >> > > >> > >> > > John
>> >> > > >> > >> > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:27 AM,
perry.shafran at noaa.gov
>> >> via
>> >> > RT
>> >> > > <
>> >> > > >> > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> >> > > >> > >> > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
>> >> > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
>> >> > > >> > >> > > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > I am able to start working on this today. Is
this
>> >> > available
>> >> > > >> for
>> >> > > >> > >> > testing
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > now?
>> >> > > >> > >> > > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > Also I'm not entirely sure what you mean in
that the
>> obs
>> >> > and
>> >> > > >> the
>> >> > > >> > >> model
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > don't match up well in time? In the example I
sent
>> you,
>> >> > you
>> >> > > >> have
>> >> > > >> > a
>> >> > > >> > >> set
>> >> > > >> > >> > > of
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > observations and all the forecast files that
verify
>> at
>> >> that
>> >> > > >> > >> particular
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > time. Both the model and observed bufr file
have
>> >> 1-hourly
>> >> > > >> fields
>> >> > > >> > >> > (hourly
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > fields of 1-hr and hourly fields of 8-hr ozone
-
>> kind of
>> >> > hard
>> >> > > >> to
>> >> > > >> > >> > imagine
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > that, but they are just values). So we will
also
>> need a
>> >> > way
>> >> > > to
>> >> > > >> > >> match
>> >> > > >> > >> > up
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > the observed field with the modeled field at
the
>> >> > > corresponding
>> >> > > >> > time.
>> >> > > >> > >> > > (For
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > example, matching the 3-hr forecast from the
12Z
>> model
>> >> run
>> >> > > with
>> >> > > >> > the
>> >> > > >> > >> 15Z
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > observed field.)
>> >> > > >> > >> > > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > I think this is best achieved with a different
>> >> execution of
>> >> > > >> > >> point_stat
>> >> > > >> > >> > > for
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > each individual hour, because that's how I do
>> gridtobs
>> >> > > anyway.
>> >> > > >> > >> > > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > What are your thoughts on the above?
>> >> > > >> > >> > > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
>> >> > > >> > >> > > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > Perry
>> >> > > >> > >> > > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:32 PM, John Halley
Gotway
>> via
>> >> RT <
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > >> > >> > > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Hi Perry,
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Howard Soh updated the logic in the PB2NC to
handle
>> >> the 1
>> >> > > and
>> >> > > >> > >> 8-hour
>> >> > > >> > >> > > COPO
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > observations in the way we discussed. I
wanted to
>> let
>> >> > you
>> >> > > >> know
>> >> > > >> > >> that
>> >> > > >> > >> > I
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > tested it this afternoon and got some good
results.
>> >> The
>> >> > > >> sample
>> >> > > >> > >> > > fcst/obs
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > data you sent doesn't line up well in time,
so I
>> just
>> >> > set a
>> >> > > >> very
>> >> > > >> > >> > large
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > matching time window in Point-Stat.
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Here's the relevant pieces of the Point-Stat
config
>> >> file:
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > fcst = {
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > field = [
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "OZCON"; level = "A01"; },
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "OZCON"; level = "A08"; }
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > ];
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > }
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > obs = {
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > message_type = [ "AIRNOW" ];
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > convert(x) = x*10^9;
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > field = [
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level = "A01"; },
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level = "A08"; }
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > ];
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > }
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > And I'm just *guessing* at that conversion
factor.
>> >> The
>> >> > > >> > resulting
>> >> > > >> > >> > > numbers
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > look about right, but its up to you to
confirm.
>> Using
>> >> > the
>> >> > > >> > sample
>> >> > > >> > >> > data
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > you
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > sent me, this results in a mean error value
of
>> 12.64
>> >> and
>> >> > > >> 15.48
>> >> > > >> > for
>> >> > > >> > >> > the
>> >> > > >> > >> > > 1
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > and 8-hour accums, respectively. But the
fcst/obs
>> >> data
>> >> > are
>> >> > > >> > >> actually
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > offset
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > by 12 hours so these numbers don't mean
much, other
>> >> than
>> >> > > >> > >> > demonstrating
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > there isn't a huge order of magnitude
difference.
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Thanks,
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > John
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:06 PM, John Halley
>> Gotway <
>> >> > > >> > >> johnhg at ucar.edu
>> >> > > >> > >> > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > Perry,
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > I think I prefer option 2 as well. I'll
ask
>> Howard
>> >> > Soh,
>> >> > > >> one
>> >> > > >> > of
>> >> > > >> > >> the
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > developers here, to add specific logic for
the
>> >> AIRNOW
>> >> > > >> message
>> >> > > >> > >> type,
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > where...
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > - level = absolute value of TPHR
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > - qc flag = QCIND
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > John
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:00 PM,
>> >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
>> >> > > >> via
>> >> > > >> > RT
>> >> > > >> > >> <
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
>> >> > > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
>> >> > > >> > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Hi, John,
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> What would be easier in comparing to the
model
>> >> output,
>> >> > > do
>> >> > > >> you
>> >> > > >> > >> > think?
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > I
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> think that having it as some sort of
>> "accumulation
>> >> > > >> variable"
>> >> > > >> > >> (the
>> >> > > >> > >> > > 2nd
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> option) would work.
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> In the model, though, they are not listed
as
>> >> either 1
>> >> > or
>> >> > > >> 8 hr
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> accumulations/averages. They are listed
as
>> either,
>> >> > for
>> >> > > >> > example
>> >> > > >> > >> > for
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > the
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > 24
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> hr forecast, either "23-24 hr ave fcst"
or
>> "16-24
>> >> hr
>> >> > ave
>> >> > > >> > fcst".
>> >> > > >> > >> > > Would
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > be
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> easier if it said "1 hr ave fcst" or "8
hr ave
>> >> fcst",
>> >> > > but
>> >> > > >> > >> again,
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > that's
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> not
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> what we got. So I'm guessing that might
make
>> it a
>> >> > > little
>> >> > > >> > more
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > challenging
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> for the model to script up?
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Perry
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:50 PM, John
Halley
>> Gotway
>> >> > via
>> >> > > >> RT <
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Perry,
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > I wanted to check how point
observations of
>> >> precip
>> >> > are
>> >> > > >> > >> stored in
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> PrepBUFR
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > so I ran PB2NC on an old NDAS file
using the
>> >> -index
>> >> > > >> option.
>> >> > > >> > >> > > Here's
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> what I
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > found:
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP06: TOTAL
PRECIPITATION
>> PAST 6
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > HOURS types:
ADPSFC
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP24: TOTAL
PRECIPITATION
>> PAST 24
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > HOURS types:
ADPSFC
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > So basically, the accumulation interval
>> exists in
>> >> > the
>> >> > > >> > >> > observation
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> variable
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > name. Following that paradigm, if the
AIRNOW
>> >> > > >> observations
>> >> > > >> > >> were
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > stored
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > using COPO01 and COPO08, then MET would
>> already
>> >> be
>> >> > > able
>> >> > > >> to
>> >> > > >> > >> > handle
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > them
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > already. But I suppose we're likely
stuck
>> with
>> >> what
>> >> > > >> we've
>> >> > > >> > >> got.
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > I can see 2 ways we could handle this
for
>> >> processing
>> >> > > >> AIRNOW
>> >> > > >> > >> > > message
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > types...
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Option 1: Follow the precip example and
modify
>> >> the
>> >> > > >> > >> observation
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > variable
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > names by appending the TPHR value.
Instead of
>> >> COPO,
>> >> > > >> we'd
>> >> > > >> > >> have
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> observations
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > named COPO01 and COPO08. And if we
ever see
>> >> TPHR =
>> >> > > -24,
>> >> > > >> > >> that'd
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > produce
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> a
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > COPO24 variable name.
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Option 2: We could keep the COPO
variable name
>> >> > > >> unchanged,
>> >> > > >> > and
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > instead
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> set
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the "level" value for these
observations to
>> >> indicate
>> >> > > the
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > accumulation
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > interval. If you look at the ascii2nc
usage
>> >> > > statement,
>> >> > > >> > >> you'll
>> >> > > >> > >> > see
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > the
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > following:
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > "Level" is the pressure level (hPa)
or
>> >> > accumulation
>> >> > > >> > >> interval
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> (HH[MMSS]).
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > So we could use the value of TPHR to
define
>> the
>> >> > level
>> >> > > >> as an
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> "accumulation"
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > interval.
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Either option could be made to work in
MET.
>> Does
>> >> > one
>> >> > > >> make
>> >> > > >> > >> more
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > sense
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > to
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > you than the other?
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > While we're doing this, I assume we
should
>> also
>> >> > using
>> >> > > >> the
>> >> > > >> > >> QCIND
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > value
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > to
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > populate the obs_qty (i.e. quality
control)
>> >> setting?
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Thanks,
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > John
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:34 PM, John
Halley
>> >> Gotway
>> >> > <
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > johnhg at ucar.edu>
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > wrote:
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Perry,
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Until users dive into the details, we
won't
>> >> know
>> >> > > about
>> >> > > >> > >> these
>> >> > > >> > >> > > sorts
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > of
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> -1
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > vs -8 issues. But once we identify
the
>> >> > > requirements,
>> >> > > >> we
>> >> > > >> > >> can
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > update
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > software to handle them.
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > So please keep the feedback coming.
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks,
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > John
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:31 PM,
>> >> > > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
>> >> > > >> > >> via
>> >> > > >> > >> > RT
>> >> > > >> > >> > > <
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
>> >> > > >> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
>> >> > > >> > >> > > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Hi, John,
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> OK, thanks! I thought the latest
version
>> of
>> >> MET
>> >> > > >> that we
>> >> > > >> > >> were
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > using
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> was
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> configured for the air quality
>> applications?
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Perry
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:26 PM,
John
>> Halley
>> >> > Gotway
>> >> > > >> via
>> >> > > >> > >> RT <
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Perry,
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > I just grabbed them and ran the
forecast
>> >> data
>> >> > > >> through
>> >> > > >> > >> the
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> plot_data_plane
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > utility. Looks like specifying
the level
>> >> as an
>> >> > > >> > >> > accumulation
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > type
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> does
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> the
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > trick:
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-
6.1/bin/plot_data_plane
>> >> > > >> AWIP3D18.tm00
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > OZCON_1hr.ps
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A1";'
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-
6.1/bin/plot_data_plane
>> >> > > >> AWIP3D18.tm00
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > OZCON_8hr.ps
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A8";'
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > The resulting images are attached.
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Next, I ran pb2nc using the -index
>> option to
>> >> > see
>> >> > > a
>> >> > > >> > >> > > description
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > of
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > prepda contents:
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/pb2nc
prepda.
>> >> 2017081000 <(201)%20708-1000> <(201)%20708-1000>
>> >> > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
>> >> > > >> > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > <(201)%20708-1000>
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > prepda.2017081000.nc
>> >> > > /usr/local/met-6.1/share/met/
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > config/PB2NCConfig_default
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > -index -log pb2nc_index.log
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Header variables:
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SID: STATION
>> IDENTIFICATION
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: XOB: LONGITUDE
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: YOB: LATITUDE
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: DHR: OBSERVATION
TIME
>> MINUS
>> >> > > CYCLE
>> >> > > >> > TIME
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ELV:
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYP: PREPBUFR
REPORT
>> TYPE
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: T29: DATA DUMP
REPORT
>> TYPE
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ITP:
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Observation variables:
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: COPO:
CONCENTRATION OF
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > POLLUTANT
>> >> types:
>> >> > > >> AIRNOW
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYPO: TYPE OF
POLLUTANT
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: CAT: PREPBUFR
DATA LEVEL
>> >> > > CATEGORY
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: PROCN: PROCESS
NUMBER FOR
>> >> THIS
>> >> > MPI
>> >> > > >> RUN
>> >> > > >> > >> > > (OBTAINED
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> FROM
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > SCRIPT)
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SQN: REPORT
SEQUENCE
>> NUMBER
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: QCIND: QUALITY
CONTROL
>> >> > INDICATION
>> >> > > OF
>> >> > > >> > >> > FOLLOWING
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DATA types: AIRNOW
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TSIG: TIME
SIGNIFICANCE
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: RPT: REPORTED
>> OBSERVATION
>> >> TIME
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TPHR: TIME PERIOD
OR
>> >> > DISPLACEMENT
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > I see the COPO and TPHR
observations
>> listed.
>> >> > > We'll
>> >> > > >> > >> need to
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > update
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > PB2NC code to handle the logic
you've
>> >> > described.
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > One option for specifying the 1 vs
8 hour
>> >> > > >> difference
>> >> > > >> > >> would
>> >> > > >> > >> > be
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > to
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> mimic
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> how
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > different precip accumulation
intervals
>> are
>> >> > > stored
>> >> > > >> for
>> >> > > >> > >> > > gauges.
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> I'll
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> look
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > more into how we might do that.
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Thanks,
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > John
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:17 PM,
>> >> > > >> > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
>> >> > > >> > >> > via
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > RT
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > <
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Hi, John,
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > I was just wondering if you have
found
>> and
>> >> > > >> received
>> >> > > >> > >> these
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > files.
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Thanks!
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Perry
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:30
AM, Perry
>> >> > > Shafran -
>> >> > > >> > NOAA
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Affiliate
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > I just transferred some model
files
>> and
>> >> an
>> >> > ob
>> >> > > >> file
>> >> > > >> > >> here
>> >> > > >> > >> > > on
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Theia.
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> All
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > these model files verify at
the ob
>> time
>> >> > here.
>> >> > > >> > Have
>> >> > > >> > >> a
>> >> > > >> > >> > > look:
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > /scratch4/NCEPDEV/meso/save/
>> >> > > >> > Perry.Shafran/for_john
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Perry
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 6:55
PM, John
>> >> > Halley
>> >> > > >> > Gotway
>> >> > > >> > >> via
>> >> > > >> > >> > > RT
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > <
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Hi Perry,
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Can you please point me to a
model
>> >> output
>> >> > > file
>> >> > > >> > >> > > containing
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > the
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > OZCON
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> fields? Presumably, these
are in
>> GRIB1
>> >> > or 2
>> >> > > >> > >> format,
>> >> > > >> > >> > and
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > hopefully,
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> there's
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> some flag in the header that
will
>> >> enable
>> >> > us
>> >> > > to
>> >> > > >> > >> > > distinguish
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > between
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> the
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> GRIB
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> records containing 1 and 8
hour
>> >> averages.
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> As for the point
observations, I
>> >> suspect
>> >> > > that
>> >> > > >> > we'll
>> >> > > >> > >> > need
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > to
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> add
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> logic
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > to
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> PB2NC to distinguish between
the 1
>> and
>> >> 8
>> >> > > hour
>> >> > > >> > COPO
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > concentrations.
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Perhaps
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> we could update PB2NC to use
the
>> TPHR
>> >> > values
>> >> > > >> to
>> >> > > >> > >> > renamed
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > COPO
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> to
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> COPO_1
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > and
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> COPO_8?
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Are these COPO point
observations
>> >> present
>> >> > in
>> >> > > >> NDAS
>> >> > > >> > >> or
>> >> > > >> > >> > > GDAS
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > PrepBUFR
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > files?
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Thanks,
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> John
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:40
PM,
>> >> > > >> > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > via
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> RT <
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Tue Feb 20 13:40:01 2018:
Request
>> >> 84134
>> >> > > was
>> >> > > >> > acted
>> >> > > >> > >> > > upon.
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Transaction: Ticket created
by
>> >> > > >> > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Queue: met_help
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Subject: verifying
ozone
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Owner: Nobody
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Requestors:
>> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Status: new
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Ticket <URL:
>> >> > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Hi, everyone,
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I am helping the AQM group
verify
>> >> ozone
>> >> > > and
>> >> > > >> I
>> >> > > >> > >> need
>> >> > > >> > >> > > some
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> assistance
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > in
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> using
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > PB2NC (and then later
point_stat,
>> but
>> >> > > let's
>> >> > > >> > start
>> >> > > >> > >> > with
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > PB2NC). I
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > need
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> to
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > be able to read in two
quantities
>> >> from
>> >> > the
>> >> > > >> > >> prepbufr
>> >> > > >> > >> > > file
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > and
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > then
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> combine
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > that to be able to compare
to the
>> two
>> >> > > model
>> >> > > >> > >> items.
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the bufr file, the
variables at
>> >> hand
>> >> > > are
>> >> > > >> > COPO
>> >> > > >> > >> > (the
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > ozone
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> concentration),
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > and also TPHR. TPHR is
either -1
>> or
>> >> -8
>> >> > > >> > >> depending on
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > whether
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> observed
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > ozone is a 1-hr or 8-hr
average.
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In essence, we have two
entities
>> here
>> >> > > >> depending
>> >> > > >> > >> on
>> >> > > >> > >> > the
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> value of
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > TPHR:
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> the
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > 1-hr average ozone and the
8-hr
>> >> average
>> >> > > >> ozone.
>> >> > > >> > >> But
>> >> > > >> > >> > > they
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> have
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > same
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > value.
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the model we also have
two
>> >> variables.
>> >> > > >> Both
>> >> > > >> > >> are
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > called
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > OZCON,
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> but
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > the
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > first one in the file is a
1-hr
>> >> average
>> >> > > and
>> >> > > >> the
>> >> > > >> > >> > second
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > one
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> is
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 8-hr
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average.
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > The trick here is verifying
1-hr
>> >> average
>> >> > > >> with
>> >> > > >> > >> 1-hr
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > average,
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> and
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> 8-hr
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average with 8-hr average.
I
>> think
>> >> > there
>> >> > > >> is a
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> multiplication
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> factor
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > in
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > there somewhere, as the obs
are in
>> >> units
>> >> > > of
>> >> > > >> > >> > mole/mole,
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > while
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > model
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> is
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > in parts per billion (ppb).
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I don't know if you've
spoken with
>> >> the
>> >> > AQM
>> >> > > >> team
>> >> > > >> > >> on
>> >> > > >> > >> > how
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> exactly
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> to do
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> this,
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > but I was hoping to help
them with
>> >> this.
>> >> > > If
>> >> > > >> > you
>> >> > > >> > >> can
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > advise
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> on
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> how
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > to
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > do
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > this, that would be great!
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Thanks!
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Perry
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > >
>> >> > > >> > >> > >
>> >> > > >> > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >> >
>> >> > > >> > >>
>> >> > > >> > >>
>> >> > > >> > >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: verifying ozone
From: Julie Prestopnik
Time: Fri Mar 23 11:14:22 2018
Hi Perry. My apologies for the delay in responding. I was out of the
office.
I have copied over your script and would like to run it to see if I
can
reproduce the error. I see the usage is:
verf_gridtobs.sh $model $vday $vcyc
Can you please send me the exact command line you are running so that
I can
try to reproduce the error? Or, to simply things you could send me a
single
command line for pb2nc and point_stat so that I can run that. The
latter
option would be preferable in case my environment isn't set up as
yours is
with all necessary items.
Thanks!
Julie
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 2:28 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
>
> Hi there,
>
> I am trying out the new 7.1 beta, and I got this error in both pb2nc
and
> point_stat (except for point_stat replace the 146 in the error with
80):
>
> terminate called after throwing an instance of
> 'netCDF::exceptions::NcBadId'
> what(): NetCDF: Not a valid ID
> file: ncVar.cpp line:146
>
/meso/save/Perry.Shafran/verif/nwtest/ush/verf_gridtobs_fits.sh[143]:
.:
> line 217:
> 41145: Abort(coredump)
>
> Any idea what the issue is here?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Perry
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Perry Shafran - NOAA Affiliate <
> perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
>
> > Hi, Julie,
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Perry
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 2:50 PM, Julie Prestopnik via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Perry.
> >>
> >> met-7.1_beta1 is now installed on tide. You can access it by
running
> the
> >> following:
> >>
> >> module use /global/noscrub/Julie.Prestopnik/modulefiles
> >> module load met/7.1_beta1
> >>
> >> Please let me know if you have any questions or encounter any
problems.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Julie
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 3:41 PM, John Halley Gotway
<johnhg at ucar.edu>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Perry and Julie,
> >> >
> >> > I just created a met-7.1_beta1 release to enable Perry to do
the
> testing
> >> > he needs.
> >> >
> >> > I posted the tarball to the MET website:
> >> > www.dtcenter.org/met/users/downloads/MET_releases/met-7.
> >> > 1_beta1.20180316.tar.gz
> >> >
> >> > Perry, I assume it'd be most convenient for you to have this
available
> >> on
> >> > WCOSS for testing? If not, please let us know where.
> >> >
> >> > Julie, assuming Perry wants it on the dev side of WCOSS, can
you
> please
> >> > install it in your personal area, and tell Perry how he can
access it?
> >> >
> >> > Here's the very short list of changes included in met-7.1_beta1
(taken
> >> > from the top-level README file):
> >> >
> >> > Version 7.1 BETA 1 Release Notes:
> >> > --------------------------------
> >> >
> >> > - Make logic for finding matching UGRD/VGRD verification tasks
more
> >> robust
> >> > in
> >> > Point-Stat and Grid-Stat.
> >> > - Fix PB2NC's computation of valid time for AIRNOW
observations.
> >> > - Minor bugfix for Series-Analysis when computing min/max
timing info
> >> for
> >> > series with some missing input files.
> >> > - Enable vld_thresh = 0 in Ensemble-Stat and Series-Analysis.
> >> > - Update pntnc2ascii.R Rscript to handle obs_var variable.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > John
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 6:46 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT
<
> >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
>
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi, John,
> >> >>
> >> >> At this point my main concern is the ability to run MET and
get good
> >> MET
> >> >> output on some of the air quality items. Then once that's
done,
> worry
> >> >> later about METViewer concerns. I do think we'll want to
eventually
> >> >> compare VSDB vs MET output using METViewer, but that seems to
be a
> down
> >> >> the
> >> >> road issue (though not too far down the road, so if there is a
> >> METViewer
> >> >> update coming up, put this in it).
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks!
> >> >>
> >> >> Perry
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 5:31 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> >> >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Perry,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Monday, we decided that I should do the first (and very
early)
> >> beta
> >> >> > release of met-7.1 to get this feature to you for testing.
But
> this
> >> >> > version really shouldn't be used for anything other than
testing.
> >> Since
> >> >> > this is a beta version for 7.1, my inclination would be to
> increment
> >> the
> >> >> > version number of the output now... to 7.1. The only
downside is
> >> that
> >> >> it
> >> >> > won't be possible to load 7.1 output in METViewer. The
loader will
> >> >> error
> >> >> > out and say that it doesn't know anything about version 7.1.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If you need to be able to load this output into METViewer,
we
> should
> >> >> keep
> >> >> > the version number back at 7.0... but I'm really worried
about
> >> >> version-itis
> >> >> > here. I don't want to create a confusing mess of output.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Any thoughts?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks,
> >> >> > John
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:57 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via
RT <
> >> >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Hi, John,
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > I'm not sure I caught whether you have something for me to
test
> or
> >> >> not.
> >> >> > I
> >> >> > > think you were asking how to deliver these updates for
ozone so I
> >> >> guess
> >> >> > you
> >> >> > > need to deliver first before I can test anything.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Thanks!
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Perry
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Perry Shafran - NOAA
Affiliate <
> >> >> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > Hi, John,
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Super, thanks! Let me know if there are any aspects of
it that
> >> need
> >> >> > > > clarification.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Perry
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:48 PM, John Halley Gotway via
RT <
> >> >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > >> Perry,
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> Yes, I received it. Thanks for the info. I wrote up a
> >> development
> >> >> > > ticket
> >> >> > > >> in JiRA to handle this and Howard Soh is taking a look
at it.
> >> I'll
> >> >> > let
> >> >> > > >> you
> >> >> > > >> know when we have an update for you.
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> Thanks,
> >> >> > > >> John
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:31 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov
via
> RT <
> >> >> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> >> >
> >> >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > Hi, John,
> >> >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > I was just wondering if you got this message
regarding the
> >> DHR in
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > > >> ozone
> >> >> > > >> > airnow file. I hadn't received any acknowledgement
of it.
> I
> >> >> think
> >> >> > > >> that if
> >> >> > > >> > we are going to read this data correctly for
verification,
> >> we'll
> >> >> > have
> >> >> > > >> to be
> >> >> > > >> > aware of this and use the DHR to add DHR to the
file's
> >> timestamp
> >> >> in
> >> >> > > >> order
> >> >> > > >> > to get the right ob at the right time.
> >> >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > Thanks!
> >> >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > Perry
> >> >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Perry Shafran - NOAA
> >> Affiliate <
> >> >> > > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> >> >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > > Hi, John,
> >> >> > > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> > > For ozone (and for PM likely as well), the DHR will
tell
> you
> >> >> the
> >> >> > > time
> >> >> > > >> of
> >> >> > > >> > > the observation. The DHR ranges from -11 to 12 in
each
> >> file,
> >> >> so
> >> >> > if
> >> >> > > >> you
> >> >> > > >> > > have an observation with DHR of -10, for example,
that
> >> >> > observations
> >> >> > > is
> >> >> > > >> > > valid at 02Z. I guess I should have done better to
note
> >> this
> >> >> to
> >> >> > you
> >> >> > > >> > > previously, but you will need this additional
information
> in
> >> >> order
> >> >> > > to
> >> >> > > >> get
> >> >> > > >> > > the valid time of the observation. My apologies
for not
> >> >> realizing
> >> >> > > >> this
> >> >> > > >> > > sooner (like before 7.0 was released).
> >> >> > > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> > > The 00Z valid time (as in your example), I just
realized,
> >> is a
> >> >> > > special
> >> >> > > >> > > case. Since the DHR ranges from -11 to 12, that
means
> that
> >> the
> >> >> > > valid
> >> >> > > >> > times
> >> >> > > >> > > in the file range from 01Z to 00Z the next day.
That's
> the
> >> >> reason
> >> >> > > for
> >> >> > > >> > this
> >> >> > > >> > > - it is indeed the 2017080912 <(201)%20708-0912>
> >> <(201)%20708-0912>
> >> >> <(201)%20708-0912> file but this
> >> >> > > >> particular
> >> >> > > >> > > valid time is 2017081000 <(201)%20708-1000>
> >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> >> >> <(201)%20708-1000> because DHR is 12 in
> >> >> > > this
> >> >> > > >> > > case. So that makes it extra special fun for
verifying
> for
> >> the
> >> >> > 00Z
> >> >> > > >> valid
> >> >> > > >> > > time, since we will have to go to the previous
day's obs
> >> file
> >> >> to
> >> >> > > >> verify
> >> >> > > >> > > that. Every other hour of the day, you won't see
this
> >> >> mismatch.
> >> >> > > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> > > Perry
> >> >> > > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:59 AM, John Halley Gotway
via
> RT <
> >> >> > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> >> > > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> Perry,
> >> >> > > >> > >>
> >> >> > > >> > >> Yes, I see that all the AWIP* GRIB2 files you sent
me are
> >> >> valid
> >> >> > at
> >> >> > > >> > >> 2017081000.
> >> >> > > >> > >>
> >> >> > > >> > >> However, the point observations in the
prepda.2017081000
> >> are
> >> >> > valid
> >> >> > > >> at
> >> >> > > >> > >> 20170809_120000. Or at least that's what the
output of
> >> PB2NC
> >> >> > tells
> >> >> > > >> me!
> >> >> > > >> > >>
> >> >> > > >> > >> The timestamps of the data contained in prepda.
> 2017081000
> >> is
> >> >> > > >> 12-hours
> >> >> > > >> > >> earlier than the timestamp of that file indicates.
> Here's
> >> a
> >> >> log
> >> >> > > >> message
> >> >> > > >> > >> from PB2NC listing out the "center time" for that
file:
> >> >> > > >> > >> DEBUG 1: Processing Bufr File:
prepda.2017081000
> >> >> > > >> > >> DEBUG 2: Bufr Time Center:
20170809_120000
> >> >> > > >> > >>
> >> >> > > >> > >> Perhaps there's a problem in the naming convention
for
> that
> >> >> > > "prepda"
> >> >> > > >> > >> file... or perhaps there's a good reason for the
12-hour
> >> >> > offset...
> >> >> > > or
> >> >> > > >> > >> perhaps there's some problem in the MET code and
we're
> not
> >> >> > reading
> >> >> > > >> data
> >> >> > > >> > >> from that file correctly?
> >> >> > > >> > >>
> >> >> > > >> > >> Thanks,
> >> >> > > >> > >> John
> >> >> > > >> > >>
> >> >> > > >> > >>
> >> >> > > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:37 AM,
perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> via
> >> >> RT <
> >> >> > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> >> > > >> > >>
> >> >> > > >> > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Tic
> >> >> ket/Display.html?id=84134
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > OK, thanks! So this is included in the latest
MET
> >> release.
> >> >> I
> >> >> > > think
> >> >> > > >> > >> there
> >> >> > > >> > >> > will definitely be other questions, if I want to
be
> able
> >> to
> >> >> > > verify
> >> >> > > >> > each
> >> >> > > >> > >> > hourly forecast of ozone with the observation.
The DHR
> >> >> tells
> >> >> > us
> >> >> > > >> which
> >> >> > > >> > >> hour
> >> >> > > >> > >> > that we are looking for to verify.
> >> >> > > >> > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > Perry
> >> >> > > >> > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:25 AM, John Halley
Gotway via
> >> RT <
> >> >> > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> >> > > >> > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > Hi Perry,
> >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > We just posted the met-7.0 release yesterday.
Julie
> >> >> > Prestopnik
> >> >> > > >> is
> >> >> > > >> > >> > actually
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > out at NCEP today, and she'll be the one to
install
> it
> >> on
> >> >> > > >> WCOSS. So
> >> >> > > >> > >> I'll
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > let her chime in to let us know when she's
able to do
> >> >> that.
> >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > Thanks,
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > John
> >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:27 AM,
> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> >> >> via
> >> >> > RT
> >> >> > > <
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> >> >> > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> >> >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > I am able to start working on this today.
Is this
> >> >> > available
> >> >> > > >> for
> >> >> > > >> > >> > testing
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > now?
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Also I'm not entirely sure what you mean in
that
> the
> >> obs
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > > >> the
> >> >> > > >> > >> model
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > don't match up well in time? In the example
I sent
> >> you,
> >> >> > you
> >> >> > > >> have
> >> >> > > >> > a
> >> >> > > >> > >> set
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > of
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > observations and all the forecast files that
verify
> >> at
> >> >> that
> >> >> > > >> > >> particular
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > time. Both the model and observed bufr file
have
> >> >> 1-hourly
> >> >> > > >> fields
> >> >> > > >> > >> > (hourly
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > fields of 1-hr and hourly fields of 8-hr
ozone -
> >> kind of
> >> >> > hard
> >> >> > > >> to
> >> >> > > >> > >> > imagine
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > that, but they are just values). So we will
also
> >> need a
> >> >> > way
> >> >> > > to
> >> >> > > >> > >> match
> >> >> > > >> > >> > up
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > the observed field with the modeled field at
the
> >> >> > > corresponding
> >> >> > > >> > time.
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > (For
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > example, matching the 3-hr forecast from the
12Z
> >> model
> >> >> run
> >> >> > > with
> >> >> > > >> > the
> >> >> > > >> > >> 15Z
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > observed field.)
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > I think this is best achieved with a
different
> >> >> execution of
> >> >> > > >> > >> point_stat
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > for
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > each individual hour, because that's how I
do
> >> gridtobs
> >> >> > > anyway.
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > What are your thoughts on the above?
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Perry
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:32 PM, John Halley
Gotway
> >> via
> >> >> RT <
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Hi Perry,
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Howard Soh updated the logic in the PB2NC
to
> handle
> >> >> the 1
> >> >> > > and
> >> >> > > >> > >> 8-hour
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > COPO
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > observations in the way we discussed. I
wanted
> to
> >> let
> >> >> > you
> >> >> > > >> know
> >> >> > > >> > >> that
> >> >> > > >> > >> > I
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > tested it this afternoon and got some good
> results.
> >> >> The
> >> >> > > >> sample
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > fcst/obs
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > data you sent doesn't line up well in
time, so I
> >> just
> >> >> > set a
> >> >> > > >> very
> >> >> > > >> > >> > large
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > matching time window in Point-Stat.
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Here's the relevant pieces of the Point-
Stat
> config
> >> >> file:
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > fcst = {
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > field = [
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "OZCON"; level = "A01"; },
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "OZCON"; level = "A08"; }
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > ];
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > }
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > obs = {
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > message_type = [ "AIRNOW" ];
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > convert(x) = x*10^9;
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > field = [
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level = "A01"; },
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level = "A08"; }
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > ];
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > }
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > And I'm just *guessing* at that conversion
> factor.
> >> >> The
> >> >> > > >> > resulting
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > numbers
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > look about right, but its up to you to
confirm.
> >> Using
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > > >> > sample
> >> >> > > >> > >> > data
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > you
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > sent me, this results in a mean error
value of
> >> 12.64
> >> >> and
> >> >> > > >> 15.48
> >> >> > > >> > for
> >> >> > > >> > >> > the
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > 1
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > and 8-hour accums, respectively. But the
> fcst/obs
> >> >> data
> >> >> > are
> >> >> > > >> > >> actually
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > offset
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > by 12 hours so these numbers don't mean
much,
> other
> >> >> than
> >> >> > > >> > >> > demonstrating
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > there isn't a huge order of magnitude
difference.
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Thanks,
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > John
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:06 PM, John
Halley
> >> Gotway <
> >> >> > > >> > >> johnhg at ucar.edu
> >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > Perry,
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > I think I prefer option 2 as well. I'll
ask
> >> Howard
> >> >> > Soh,
> >> >> > > >> one
> >> >> > > >> > of
> >> >> > > >> > >> the
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > developers here, to add specific logic
for the
> >> >> AIRNOW
> >> >> > > >> message
> >> >> > > >> > >> type,
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > where...
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > - level = absolute value of TPHR
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > - qc flag = QCIND
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > John
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:00 PM,
> >> >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> >> >> > > >> via
> >> >> > > >> > RT
> >> >> > > >> > >> <
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> >> >> > > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> >> >> > > >> > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Hi, John,
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> What would be easier in comparing to
the model
> >> >> output,
> >> >> > > do
> >> >> > > >> you
> >> >> > > >> > >> > think?
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > I
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> think that having it as some sort of
> >> "accumulation
> >> >> > > >> variable"
> >> >> > > >> > >> (the
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > 2nd
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> option) would work.
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> In the model, though, they are not
listed as
> >> >> either 1
> >> >> > or
> >> >> > > >> 8 hr
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> accumulations/averages. They are
listed as
> >> either,
> >> >> > for
> >> >> > > >> > example
> >> >> > > >> > >> > for
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > the
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > 24
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> hr forecast, either "23-24 hr ave fcst"
or
> >> "16-24
> >> >> hr
> >> >> > ave
> >> >> > > >> > fcst".
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > Would
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > be
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> easier if it said "1 hr ave fcst" or "8
hr ave
> >> >> fcst",
> >> >> > > but
> >> >> > > >> > >> again,
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > that's
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> not
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> what we got. So I'm guessing that
might make
> >> it a
> >> >> > > little
> >> >> > > >> > more
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > challenging
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> for the model to script up?
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Perry
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:50 PM, John
Halley
> >> Gotway
> >> >> > via
> >> >> > > >> RT <
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Perry,
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > I wanted to check how point
observations of
> >> >> precip
> >> >> > are
> >> >> > > >> > >> stored in
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> PrepBUFR
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > so I ran PB2NC on an old NDAS file
using the
> >> >> -index
> >> >> > > >> option.
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > Here's
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> what I
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > found:
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP06: TOTAL
PRECIPITATION
> >> PAST 6
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > HOURS types:
ADPSFC
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP24: TOTAL
PRECIPITATION
> >> PAST 24
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > HOURS types:
ADPSFC
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > So basically, the accumulation
interval
> >> exists in
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > > >> > >> > observation
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> variable
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > name. Following that paradigm, if
the
> AIRNOW
> >> >> > > >> observations
> >> >> > > >> > >> were
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > stored
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > using COPO01 and COPO08, then MET
would
> >> already
> >> >> be
> >> >> > > able
> >> >> > > >> to
> >> >> > > >> > >> > handle
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > them
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > already. But I suppose we're likely
stuck
> >> with
> >> >> what
> >> >> > > >> we've
> >> >> > > >> > >> got.
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > I can see 2 ways we could handle this
for
> >> >> processing
> >> >> > > >> AIRNOW
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > message
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > types...
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Option 1: Follow the precip example
and
> modify
> >> >> the
> >> >> > > >> > >> observation
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > variable
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > names by appending the TPHR value.
Instead
> of
> >> >> COPO,
> >> >> > > >> we'd
> >> >> > > >> > >> have
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> observations
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > named COPO01 and COPO08. And if we
ever see
> >> >> TPHR =
> >> >> > > -24,
> >> >> > > >> > >> that'd
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > produce
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> a
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > COPO24 variable name.
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Option 2: We could keep the COPO
variable
> name
> >> >> > > >> unchanged,
> >> >> > > >> > and
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > instead
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> set
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the "level" value for these
observations to
> >> >> indicate
> >> >> > > the
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > accumulation
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > interval. If you look at the
ascii2nc usage
> >> >> > > statement,
> >> >> > > >> > >> you'll
> >> >> > > >> > >> > see
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > the
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > following:
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > "Level" is the pressure level
(hPa) or
> >> >> > accumulation
> >> >> > > >> > >> interval
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> (HH[MMSS]).
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > So we could use the value of TPHR to
define
> >> the
> >> >> > level
> >> >> > > >> as an
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> "accumulation"
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > interval.
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Either option could be made to work
in MET.
> >> Does
> >> >> > one
> >> >> > > >> make
> >> >> > > >> > >> more
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > sense
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > to
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > you than the other?
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > While we're doing this, I assume we
should
> >> also
> >> >> > using
> >> >> > > >> the
> >> >> > > >> > >> QCIND
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > value
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > to
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > populate the obs_qty (i.e. quality
control)
> >> >> setting?
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Thanks,
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > John
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:34 PM, John
Halley
> >> >> Gotway
> >> >> > <
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > johnhg at ucar.edu>
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > wrote:
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Perry,
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Until users dive into the details,
we
> won't
> >> >> know
> >> >> > > about
> >> >> > > >> > >> these
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > sorts
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > of
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> -1
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > vs -8 issues. But once we identify
the
> >> >> > > requirements,
> >> >> > > >> we
> >> >> > > >> > >> can
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > update
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > software to handle them.
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > So please keep the feedback coming.
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks,
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > John
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:31 PM,
> >> >> > > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> >> >> > > >> > >> via
> >> >> > > >> > >> > RT
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > <
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> >> >> > > >> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Hi, John,
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> OK, thanks! I thought the latest
version
> >> of
> >> >> MET
> >> >> > > >> that we
> >> >> > > >> > >> were
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > using
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> was
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> configured for the air quality
> >> applications?
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Perry
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:26 PM,
John
> >> Halley
> >> >> > Gotway
> >> >> > > >> via
> >> >> > > >> > >> RT <
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Perry,
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > I just grabbed them and ran the
> forecast
> >> >> data
> >> >> > > >> through
> >> >> > > >> > >> the
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> plot_data_plane
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > utility. Looks like specifying
the
> level
> >> >> as an
> >> >> > > >> > >> > accumulation
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > type
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> does
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> the
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > trick:
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-
6.1/bin/plot_data_plane
> >> >> > > >> AWIP3D18.tm00
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > OZCON_1hr.ps
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A1";'
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-
6.1/bin/plot_data_plane
> >> >> > > >> AWIP3D18.tm00
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > OZCON_8hr.ps
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A8";'
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > The resulting images are
attached.
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Next, I ran pb2nc using the
-index
> >> option to
> >> >> > see
> >> >> > > a
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > description
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > of
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > prepda contents:
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/pb2nc
prepda.
> >> >> 2017081000 <(201)%20708-1000> <(201)%20708-1000>
> >> >> > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> >> >> > > >> > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > <(201)%20708-1000>
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > prepda.2017081000.nc
> >> >> > > /usr/local/met-6.1/share/met/
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > config/PB2NCConfig_default
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > -index -log pb2nc_index.log
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Header variables:
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SID: STATION
> >> IDENTIFICATION
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: XOB: LONGITUDE
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: YOB: LATITUDE
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: DHR:
OBSERVATION TIME
> >> MINUS
> >> >> > > CYCLE
> >> >> > > >> > TIME
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ELV:
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYP: PREPBUFR
REPORT
> >> TYPE
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: T29: DATA DUMP
REPORT
> >> TYPE
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ITP:
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Observation
variables:
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: COPO:
CONCENTRATION OF
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > POLLUTANT
> >> >> types:
> >> >> > > >> AIRNOW
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYPO: TYPE OF
POLLUTANT
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: CAT: PREPBUFR
DATA
> LEVEL
> >> >> > > CATEGORY
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: PROCN: PROCESS
NUMBER
> FOR
> >> >> THIS
> >> >> > MPI
> >> >> > > >> RUN
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > (OBTAINED
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> FROM
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > SCRIPT)
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SQN: REPORT
SEQUENCE
> >> NUMBER
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: QCIND: QUALITY
CONTROL
> >> >> > INDICATION
> >> >> > > OF
> >> >> > > >> > >> > FOLLOWING
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DATA types: AIRNOW
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TSIG: TIME
SIGNIFICANCE
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: RPT: REPORTED
> >> OBSERVATION
> >> >> TIME
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TPHR: TIME
PERIOD OR
> >> >> > DISPLACEMENT
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > I see the COPO and TPHR
observations
> >> listed.
> >> >> > > We'll
> >> >> > > >> > >> need to
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > update
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > PB2NC code to handle the logic
you've
> >> >> > described.
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > One option for specifying the 1
vs 8
> hour
> >> >> > > >> difference
> >> >> > > >> > >> would
> >> >> > > >> > >> > be
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > to
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> mimic
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> how
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > different precip accumulation
intervals
> >> are
> >> >> > > stored
> >> >> > > >> for
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > gauges.
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> I'll
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> look
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > more into how we might do that.
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Thanks,
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > John
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:17
PM,
> >> >> > > >> > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> >> >> > > >> > >> > via
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > RT
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > <
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Hi, John,
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > I was just wondering if you
have
> found
> >> and
> >> >> > > >> received
> >> >> > > >> > >> these
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > files.
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Thanks!
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Perry
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:30
AM,
> Perry
> >> >> > > Shafran -
> >> >> > > >> > NOAA
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Affiliate
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > I just transferred some
model files
> >> and
> >> >> an
> >> >> > ob
> >> >> > > >> file
> >> >> > > >> > >> here
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > on
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Theia.
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> All
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > these model files verify at
the ob
> >> time
> >> >> > here.
> >> >> > > >> > Have
> >> >> > > >> > >> a
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > look:
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > /scratch4/NCEPDEV/meso/save/
> >> >> > > >> > Perry.Shafran/for_john
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Perry
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 6:55
PM,
> John
> >> >> > Halley
> >> >> > > >> > Gotway
> >> >> > > >> > >> via
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > RT
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > <
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Hi Perry,
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Can you please point me to
a model
> >> >> output
> >> >> > > file
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > containing
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > the
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > OZCON
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> fields? Presumably, these
are in
> >> GRIB1
> >> >> > or 2
> >> >> > > >> > >> format,
> >> >> > > >> > >> > and
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > hopefully,
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> there's
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> some flag in the header
that will
> >> >> enable
> >> >> > us
> >> >> > > to
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > distinguish
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > between
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> the
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> GRIB
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> records containing 1 and 8
hour
> >> >> averages.
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> As for the point
observations, I
> >> >> suspect
> >> >> > > that
> >> >> > > >> > we'll
> >> >> > > >> > >> > need
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > to
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> add
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> logic
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > to
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> PB2NC to distinguish
between the 1
> >> and
> >> >> 8
> >> >> > > hour
> >> >> > > >> > COPO
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > concentrations.
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Perhaps
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> we could update PB2NC to
use the
> >> TPHR
> >> >> > values
> >> >> > > >> to
> >> >> > > >> > >> > renamed
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > COPO
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> to
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> COPO_1
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > and
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> COPO_8?
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Are these COPO point
observations
> >> >> present
> >> >> > in
> >> >> > > >> NDAS
> >> >> > > >> > >> or
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > GDAS
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > PrepBUFR
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > files?
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Thanks,
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> John
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at
1:40 PM,
> >> >> > > >> > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > via
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> RT <
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Tue Feb 20 13:40:01 2018:
> Request
> >> >> 84134
> >> >> > > was
> >> >> > > >> > acted
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > upon.
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Transaction: Ticket
created by
> >> >> > > >> > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Queue: met_help
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Subject: verifying
ozone
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Owner: Nobody
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Requestors:
> >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Status: new
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Ticket <URL:
> >> >> > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Hi, everyone,
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I am helping the AQM
group
> verify
> >> >> ozone
> >> >> > > and
> >> >> > > >> I
> >> >> > > >> > >> need
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > some
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> assistance
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > in
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> using
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > PB2NC (and then later
> point_stat,
> >> but
> >> >> > > let's
> >> >> > > >> > start
> >> >> > > >> > >> > with
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > PB2NC). I
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > need
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> to
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > be able to read in two
> quantities
> >> >> from
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > > >> > >> prepbufr
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > file
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > and
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > then
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> combine
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > that to be able to
compare to
> the
> >> two
> >> >> > > model
> >> >> > > >> > >> items.
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the bufr file, the
variables
> at
> >> >> hand
> >> >> > > are
> >> >> > > >> > COPO
> >> >> > > >> > >> > (the
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > ozone
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> concentration),
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > and also TPHR. TPHR is
either
> -1
> >> or
> >> >> -8
> >> >> > > >> > >> depending on
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > whether
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> observed
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > ozone is a 1-hr or 8-hr
average.
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In essence, we have two
entities
> >> here
> >> >> > > >> depending
> >> >> > > >> > >> on
> >> >> > > >> > >> > the
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> value of
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > TPHR:
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> the
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > 1-hr average ozone and
the 8-hr
> >> >> average
> >> >> > > >> ozone.
> >> >> > > >> > >> But
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > they
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> have
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > same
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > value.
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the model we also have
two
> >> >> variables.
> >> >> > > >> Both
> >> >> > > >> > >> are
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > called
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > OZCON,
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> but
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > the
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > first one in the file is
a 1-hr
> >> >> average
> >> >> > > and
> >> >> > > >> the
> >> >> > > >> > >> > second
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > one
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> is
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 8-hr
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average.
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > The trick here is
verifying 1-hr
> >> >> average
> >> >> > > >> with
> >> >> > > >> > >> 1-hr
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > average,
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> and
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> 8-hr
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average with 8-hr
average. I
> >> think
> >> >> > there
> >> >> > > >> is a
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> multiplication
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> factor
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > in
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > there somewhere, as the
obs are
> in
> >> >> units
> >> >> > > of
> >> >> > > >> > >> > mole/mole,
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > while
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > model
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> is
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > in parts per billion
(ppb).
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I don't know if you've
spoken
> with
> >> >> the
> >> >> > AQM
> >> >> > > >> team
> >> >> > > >> > >> on
> >> >> > > >> > >> > how
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> exactly
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> to do
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> this,
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > but I was hoping to help
them
> with
> >> >> this.
> >> >> > > If
> >> >> > > >> > you
> >> >> > > >> > >> can
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > advise
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> on
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> how
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > to
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > do
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > this, that would be
great!
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Thanks!
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Perry
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > >>
> >> >> > > >> > >>
> >> >> > > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: verifying ozone
From: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
Time: Fri Mar 23 11:20:27 2018
Hi, Julie,
Yikes, it's all part a script, and it's not quite the usage. But here
are
the commands used from the output:
pb2nc prepda.2018032200 prepda.nc.2018032200
/meso/save/Perry.Shafran/verif/nwtest/parm/PB2NCConfig -v
3
point_stat AWIP3D00.tm00 prepda.nc.2018032200
/meso/save/Perry.Shafran/verif/nwtest/parm/PointStatConfig_cv -v 3
You can run these if you go to the directory
/stmpp2/Perry.Shafran/tmpnwtest/verf_gridtobs_nam_00/00.
Thanks!
BTW - am I the only one who knows about the 7.1 beta? In case I'm not
supposed to bring it up among my colleagues?
Thanks!
Perry
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Julie Prestopnik via RT
<met_help at ucar.edu>
wrote:
> Hi Perry. My apologies for the delay in responding. I was out of
the
> office.
> I have copied over your script and would like to run it to see if I
can
> reproduce the error. I see the usage is:
>
> verf_gridtobs.sh $model $vday $vcyc
>
> Can you please send me the exact command line you are running so
that I can
> try to reproduce the error? Or, to simply things you could send me a
single
> command line for pb2nc and point_stat so that I can run that. The
latter
> option would be preferable in case my environment isn't set up as
yours is
> with all necessary items.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Julie
>
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 2:28 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> >
> > Hi there,
> >
> > I am trying out the new 7.1 beta, and I got this error in both
pb2nc and
> > point_stat (except for point_stat replace the 146 in the error
with 80):
> >
> > terminate called after throwing an instance of
> > 'netCDF::exceptions::NcBadId'
> > what(): NetCDF: Not a valid ID
> > file: ncVar.cpp line:146
> >
/meso/save/Perry.Shafran/verif/nwtest/ush/verf_gridtobs_fits.sh[143]:
.:
> > line 217:
> > 41145: Abort(coredump)
> >
> > Any idea what the issue is here?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Perry
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Perry Shafran - NOAA Affiliate <
> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi, Julie,
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > Perry
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 2:50 PM, Julie Prestopnik via RT <
> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi Perry.
> > >>
> > >> met-7.1_beta1 is now installed on tide. You can access it by
running
> > the
> > >> following:
> > >>
> > >> module use /global/noscrub/Julie.Prestopnik/modulefiles
> > >> module load met/7.1_beta1
> > >>
> > >> Please let me know if you have any questions or encounter any
> problems.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Julie
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 3:41 PM, John Halley Gotway
<johnhg at ucar.edu>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Perry and Julie,
> > >> >
> > >> > I just created a met-7.1_beta1 release to enable Perry to do
the
> > testing
> > >> > he needs.
> > >> >
> > >> > I posted the tarball to the MET website:
> > >> > www.dtcenter.org/met/users/downloads/MET_releases/met-7.
> > >> > 1_beta1.20180316.tar.gz
> > >> >
> > >> > Perry, I assume it'd be most convenient for you to have this
> available
> > >> on
> > >> > WCOSS for testing? If not, please let us know where.
> > >> >
> > >> > Julie, assuming Perry wants it on the dev side of WCOSS, can
you
> > please
> > >> > install it in your personal area, and tell Perry how he can
access
> it?
> > >> >
> > >> > Here's the very short list of changes included in met-
7.1_beta1
> (taken
> > >> > from the top-level README file):
> > >> >
> > >> > Version 7.1 BETA 1 Release Notes:
> > >> > --------------------------------
> > >> >
> > >> > - Make logic for finding matching UGRD/VGRD verification
tasks more
> > >> robust
> > >> > in
> > >> > Point-Stat and Grid-Stat.
> > >> > - Fix PB2NC's computation of valid time for AIRNOW
observations.
> > >> > - Minor bugfix for Series-Analysis when computing min/max
timing
> info
> > >> for
> > >> > series with some missing input files.
> > >> > - Enable vld_thresh = 0 in Ensemble-Stat and Series-Analysis.
> > >> > - Update pntnc2ascii.R Rscript to handle obs_var variable.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks,
> > >> > John
> > >> >
> > >> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 6:46 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via
RT <
> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >> <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Hi, John,
> > >> >>
> > >> >> At this point my main concern is the ability to run MET and
get
> good
> > >> MET
> > >> >> output on some of the air quality items. Then once that's
done,
> > worry
> > >> >> later about METViewer concerns. I do think we'll want to
> eventually
> > >> >> compare VSDB vs MET output using METViewer, but that seems
to be a
> > down
> > >> >> the
> > >> >> road issue (though not too far down the road, so if there is
a
> > >> METViewer
> > >> >> update coming up, put this in it).
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Thanks!
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Perry
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 5:31 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> > >> >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > Perry,
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > On Monday, we decided that I should do the first (and very
early)
> > >> beta
> > >> >> > release of met-7.1 to get this feature to you for testing.
But
> > this
> > >> >> > version really shouldn't be used for anything other than
testing.
> > >> Since
> > >> >> > this is a beta version for 7.1, my inclination would be to
> > increment
> > >> the
> > >> >> > version number of the output now... to 7.1. The only
downside is
> > >> that
> > >> >> it
> > >> >> > won't be possible to load 7.1 output in METViewer. The
loader
> will
> > >> >> error
> > >> >> > out and say that it doesn't know anything about version
7.1.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > If you need to be able to load this output into METViewer,
we
> > should
> > >> >> keep
> > >> >> > the version number back at 7.0... but I'm really worried
about
> > >> >> version-itis
> > >> >> > here. I don't want to create a confusing mess of output.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Any thoughts?
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Thanks,
> > >> >> > John
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:57 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov
via RT
> <
> > >> >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > Hi, John,
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > I'm not sure I caught whether you have something for me
to test
> > or
> > >> >> not.
> > >> >> > I
> > >> >> > > think you were asking how to deliver these updates for
ozone
> so I
> > >> >> guess
> > >> >> > you
> > >> >> > > need to deliver first before I can test anything.
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > Thanks!
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > Perry
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Perry Shafran - NOAA
Affiliate
> <
> > >> >> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > > Hi, John,
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > Super, thanks! Let me know if there are any aspects
of it
> that
> > >> need
> > >> >> > > > clarification.
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > Perry
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:48 PM, John Halley Gotway via
RT <
> > >> >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >> Perry,
> > >> >> > > >>
> > >> >> > > >> Yes, I received it. Thanks for the info. I wrote up
a
> > >> development
> > >> >> > > ticket
> > >> >> > > >> in JiRA to handle this and Howard Soh is taking a
look at
> it.
> > >> I'll
> > >> >> > let
> > >> >> > > >> you
> > >> >> > > >> know when we have an update for you.
> > >> >> > > >>
> > >> >> > > >> Thanks,
> > >> >> > > >> John
> > >> >> > > >>
> > >> >> > > >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:31 PM,
perry.shafran at noaa.gov via
> > RT <
> > >> >> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >> >> > > >>
> > >> >> > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > Hi, John,
> > >> >> > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > I was just wondering if you got this message
regarding the
> > >> DHR in
> > >> >> > the
> > >> >> > > >> ozone
> > >> >> > > >> > airnow file. I hadn't received any acknowledgement
of it.
> > I
> > >> >> think
> > >> >> > > >> that if
> > >> >> > > >> > we are going to read this data correctly for
verification,
> > >> we'll
> > >> >> > have
> > >> >> > > >> to be
> > >> >> > > >> > aware of this and use the DHR to add DHR to the
file's
> > >> timestamp
> > >> >> in
> > >> >> > > >> order
> > >> >> > > >> > to get the right ob at the right time.
> > >> >> > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > Thanks!
> > >> >> > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > Perry
> > >> >> > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Perry Shafran -
NOAA
> > >> Affiliate <
> > >> >> > > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > >> >> > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > > Hi, John,
> > >> >> > > >> > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > For ozone (and for PM likely as well), the DHR
will tell
> > you
> > >> >> the
> > >> >> > > time
> > >> >> > > >> of
> > >> >> > > >> > > the observation. The DHR ranges from -11 to 12
in each
> > >> file,
> > >> >> so
> > >> >> > if
> > >> >> > > >> you
> > >> >> > > >> > > have an observation with DHR of -10, for example,
that
> > >> >> > observations
> > >> >> > > is
> > >> >> > > >> > > valid at 02Z. I guess I should have done better
to note
> > >> this
> > >> >> to
> > >> >> > you
> > >> >> > > >> > > previously, but you will need this additional
> information
> > in
> > >> >> order
> > >> >> > > to
> > >> >> > > >> get
> > >> >> > > >> > > the valid time of the observation. My apologies
for not
> > >> >> realizing
> > >> >> > > >> this
> > >> >> > > >> > > sooner (like before 7.0 was released).
> > >> >> > > >> > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > The 00Z valid time (as in your example), I just
> realized,
> > >> is a
> > >> >> > > special
> > >> >> > > >> > > case. Since the DHR ranges from -11 to 12, that
means
> > that
> > >> the
> > >> >> > > valid
> > >> >> > > >> > times
> > >> >> > > >> > > in the file range from 01Z to 00Z the next day.
That's
> > the
> > >> >> reason
> > >> >> > > for
> > >> >> > > >> > this
> > >> >> > > >> > > - it is indeed the 2017080912 <(201)%20708-0912>
> > >> <(201)%20708-0912>
> > >> >> <(201)%20708-0912> file but this
> > >> >> > > >> particular
> > >> >> > > >> > > valid time is 2017081000 <(201)%20708-1000>
> > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > >> >> <(201)%20708-1000> because DHR is 12 in
> > >> >> > > this
> > >> >> > > >> > > case. So that makes it extra special fun for
verifying
> > for
> > >> the
> > >> >> > 00Z
> > >> >> > > >> valid
> > >> >> > > >> > > time, since we will have to go to the previous
day's obs
> > >> file
> > >> >> to
> > >> >> > > >> verify
> > >> >> > > >> > > that. Every other hour of the day, you won't see
this
> > >> >> mismatch.
> > >> >> > > >> > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > Perry
> > >> >> > > >> > >
> > >> >> > > >> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:59 AM, John Halley
Gotway via
> > RT <
> > >> >> > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >> >> > > >> > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> Perry,
> > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > >> Yes, I see that all the AWIP* GRIB2 files you
sent me
> are
> > >> >> valid
> > >> >> > at
> > >> >> > > >> > >> 2017081000.
> > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > >> However, the point observations in the prepda.
> 2017081000
> > >> are
> > >> >> > valid
> > >> >> > > >> at
> > >> >> > > >> > >> 20170809_120000. Or at least that's what the
output of
> > >> PB2NC
> > >> >> > tells
> > >> >> > > >> me!
> > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > >> The timestamps of the data contained in prepda.
> > 2017081000
> > >> is
> > >> >> > > >> 12-hours
> > >> >> > > >> > >> earlier than the timestamp of that file
indicates.
> > Here's
> > >> a
> > >> >> log
> > >> >> > > >> message
> > >> >> > > >> > >> from PB2NC listing out the "center time" for
that file:
> > >> >> > > >> > >> DEBUG 1: Processing Bufr File:
prepda.2017081000
> > >> >> > > >> > >> DEBUG 2: Bufr Time Center:
20170809_120000
> > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > >> Perhaps there's a problem in the naming
convention for
> > that
> > >> >> > > "prepda"
> > >> >> > > >> > >> file... or perhaps there's a good reason for the
> 12-hour
> > >> >> > offset...
> > >> >> > > or
> > >> >> > > >> > >> perhaps there's some problem in the MET code and
we're
> > not
> > >> >> > reading
> > >> >> > > >> data
> > >> >> > > >> > >> from that file correctly?
> > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > >> Thanks,
> > >> >> > > >> > >> John
> > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:37 AM,
perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > via
> > >> >> RT <
> > >> >> > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Tic
> > >> >> ket/Display.html?id=84134
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > OK, thanks! So this is included in the latest
MET
> > >> release.
> > >> >> I
> > >> >> > > think
> > >> >> > > >> > >> there
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > will definitely be other questions, if I want
to be
> > able
> > >> to
> > >> >> > > verify
> > >> >> > > >> > each
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > hourly forecast of ozone with the observation.
The
> DHR
> > >> >> tells
> > >> >> > us
> > >> >> > > >> which
> > >> >> > > >> > >> hour
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > that we are looking for to verify.
> > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > Perry
> > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:25 AM, John Halley
Gotway
> via
> > >> RT <
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > Hi Perry,
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > We just posted the met-7.0 release
yesterday.
> Julie
> > >> >> > Prestopnik
> > >> >> > > >> is
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > actually
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > out at NCEP today, and she'll be the one to
install
> > it
> > >> on
> > >> >> > > >> WCOSS. So
> > >> >> > > >> > >> I'll
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > let her chime in to let us know when she's
able to
> do
> > >> >> that.
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > Thanks,
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > John
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:27 AM,
> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > >> >> via
> > >> >> > RT
> > >> >> > > <
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > >> >> > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > >> >> > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > I am able to start working on this today.
Is
> this
> > >> >> > available
> > >> >> > > >> for
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > testing
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > now?
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Also I'm not entirely sure what you mean
in that
> > the
> > >> obs
> > >> >> > and
> > >> >> > > >> the
> > >> >> > > >> > >> model
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > don't match up well in time? In the
example I
> sent
> > >> you,
> > >> >> > you
> > >> >> > > >> have
> > >> >> > > >> > a
> > >> >> > > >> > >> set
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > of
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > observations and all the forecast files
that
> verify
> > >> at
> > >> >> that
> > >> >> > > >> > >> particular
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > time. Both the model and observed bufr
file have
> > >> >> 1-hourly
> > >> >> > > >> fields
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > (hourly
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > fields of 1-hr and hourly fields of 8-hr
ozone -
> > >> kind of
> > >> >> > hard
> > >> >> > > >> to
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > imagine
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > that, but they are just values). So we
will also
> > >> need a
> > >> >> > way
> > >> >> > > to
> > >> >> > > >> > >> match
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > up
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > the observed field with the modeled field
at the
> > >> >> > > corresponding
> > >> >> > > >> > time.
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > (For
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > example, matching the 3-hr forecast from
the 12Z
> > >> model
> > >> >> run
> > >> >> > > with
> > >> >> > > >> > the
> > >> >> > > >> > >> 15Z
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > observed field.)
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > I think this is best achieved with a
different
> > >> >> execution of
> > >> >> > > >> > >> point_stat
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > for
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > each individual hour, because that's how I
do
> > >> gridtobs
> > >> >> > > anyway.
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > What are your thoughts on the above?
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Perry
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:32 PM, John
Halley
> Gotway
> > >> via
> > >> >> RT <
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Hi Perry,
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Howard Soh updated the logic in the
PB2NC to
> > handle
> > >> >> the 1
> > >> >> > > and
> > >> >> > > >> > >> 8-hour
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > COPO
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > observations in the way we discussed. I
wanted
> > to
> > >> let
> > >> >> > you
> > >> >> > > >> know
> > >> >> > > >> > >> that
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > I
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > tested it this afternoon and got some
good
> > results.
> > >> >> The
> > >> >> > > >> sample
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > fcst/obs
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > data you sent doesn't line up well in
time, so
> I
> > >> just
> > >> >> > set a
> > >> >> > > >> very
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > large
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > matching time window in Point-Stat.
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Here's the relevant pieces of the Point-
Stat
> > config
> > >> >> file:
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > fcst = {
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > field = [
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "OZCON"; level = "A01";
},
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "OZCON"; level = "A08"; }
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > ];
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > }
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > obs = {
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > message_type = [ "AIRNOW" ];
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > convert(x) = x*10^9;
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > field = [
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level = "A01"; },
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level = "A08"; }
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > ];
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > }
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > And I'm just *guessing* at that
conversion
> > factor.
> > >> >> The
> > >> >> > > >> > resulting
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > numbers
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > look about right, but its up to you to
confirm.
> > >> Using
> > >> >> > the
> > >> >> > > >> > sample
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > data
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > you
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > sent me, this results in a mean error
value of
> > >> 12.64
> > >> >> and
> > >> >> > > >> 15.48
> > >> >> > > >> > for
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > the
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > 1
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > and 8-hour accums, respectively. But
the
> > fcst/obs
> > >> >> data
> > >> >> > are
> > >> >> > > >> > >> actually
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > offset
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > by 12 hours so these numbers don't mean
much,
> > other
> > >> >> than
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > demonstrating
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > there isn't a huge order of magnitude
> difference.
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Thanks,
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > John
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:06 PM, John
Halley
> > >> Gotway <
> > >> >> > > >> > >> johnhg at ucar.edu
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > Perry,
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > I think I prefer option 2 as well.
I'll ask
> > >> Howard
> > >> >> > Soh,
> > >> >> > > >> one
> > >> >> > > >> > of
> > >> >> > > >> > >> the
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > developers here, to add specific logic
for
> the
> > >> >> AIRNOW
> > >> >> > > >> message
> > >> >> > > >> > >> type,
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > where...
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > - level = absolute value of TPHR
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > - qc flag = QCIND
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > John
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:00 PM,
> > >> >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > >> >> > > >> via
> > >> >> > > >> > RT
> > >> >> > > >> > >> <
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > >> >> > > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Hi, John,
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> What would be easier in comparing to
the
> model
> > >> >> output,
> > >> >> > > do
> > >> >> > > >> you
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > think?
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > I
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> think that having it as some sort of
> > >> "accumulation
> > >> >> > > >> variable"
> > >> >> > > >> > >> (the
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > 2nd
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> option) would work.
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> In the model, though, they are not
listed as
> > >> >> either 1
> > >> >> > or
> > >> >> > > >> 8 hr
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> accumulations/averages. They are
listed as
> > >> either,
> > >> >> > for
> > >> >> > > >> > example
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > for
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > the
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > 24
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> hr forecast, either "23-24 hr ave
fcst" or
> > >> "16-24
> > >> >> hr
> > >> >> > ave
> > >> >> > > >> > fcst".
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > Would
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > be
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> easier if it said "1 hr ave fcst" or
"8 hr
> ave
> > >> >> fcst",
> > >> >> > > but
> > >> >> > > >> > >> again,
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > that's
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> not
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> what we got. So I'm guessing that
might
> make
> > >> it a
> > >> >> > > little
> > >> >> > > >> > more
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > challenging
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> for the model to script up?
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Perry
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:50 PM, John
Halley
> > >> Gotway
> > >> >> > via
> > >> >> > > >> RT <
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Perry,
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > I wanted to check how point
observations
> of
> > >> >> precip
> > >> >> > are
> > >> >> > > >> > >> stored in
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> PrepBUFR
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > so I ran PB2NC on an old NDAS file
using
> the
> > >> >> -index
> > >> >> > > >> option.
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > Here's
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> what I
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > found:
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP06: TOTAL
PRECIPITATION
> > >> PAST 6
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > HOURS
types:
> ADPSFC
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP24: TOTAL
PRECIPITATION
> > >> PAST 24
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > HOURS
types:
> ADPSFC
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > So basically, the accumulation
interval
> > >> exists in
> > >> >> > the
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > observation
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> variable
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > name. Following that paradigm, if
the
> > AIRNOW
> > >> >> > > >> observations
> > >> >> > > >> > >> were
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > stored
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > using COPO01 and COPO08, then MET
would
> > >> already
> > >> >> be
> > >> >> > > able
> > >> >> > > >> to
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > handle
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > them
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > already. But I suppose we're
likely stuck
> > >> with
> > >> >> what
> > >> >> > > >> we've
> > >> >> > > >> > >> got.
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > I can see 2 ways we could handle
this for
> > >> >> processing
> > >> >> > > >> AIRNOW
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > message
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > types...
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Option 1: Follow the precip example
and
> > modify
> > >> >> the
> > >> >> > > >> > >> observation
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > variable
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > names by appending the TPHR value.
> Instead
> > of
> > >> >> COPO,
> > >> >> > > >> we'd
> > >> >> > > >> > >> have
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> observations
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > named COPO01 and COPO08. And if we
ever
> see
> > >> >> TPHR =
> > >> >> > > -24,
> > >> >> > > >> > >> that'd
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > produce
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> a
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > COPO24 variable name.
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Option 2: We could keep the COPO
variable
> > name
> > >> >> > > >> unchanged,
> > >> >> > > >> > and
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > instead
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> set
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the "level" value for these
observations
> to
> > >> >> indicate
> > >> >> > > the
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > accumulation
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > interval. If you look at the
ascii2nc
> usage
> > >> >> > > statement,
> > >> >> > > >> > >> you'll
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > see
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > the
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > following:
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > "Level" is the pressure level
(hPa) or
> > >> >> > accumulation
> > >> >> > > >> > >> interval
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> (HH[MMSS]).
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > So we could use the value of TPHR
to
> define
> > >> the
> > >> >> > level
> > >> >> > > >> as an
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> "accumulation"
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > interval.
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Either option could be made to work
in
> MET.
> > >> Does
> > >> >> > one
> > >> >> > > >> make
> > >> >> > > >> > >> more
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > sense
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > to
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > you than the other?
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > While we're doing this, I assume we
should
> > >> also
> > >> >> > using
> > >> >> > > >> the
> > >> >> > > >> > >> QCIND
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > value
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > to
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > populate the obs_qty (i.e. quality
> control)
> > >> >> setting?
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Thanks,
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > John
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:34 PM,
John
> Halley
> > >> >> Gotway
> > >> >> > <
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > johnhg at ucar.edu>
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Perry,
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Until users dive into the
details, we
> > won't
> > >> >> know
> > >> >> > > about
> > >> >> > > >> > >> these
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > sorts
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > of
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> -1
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > vs -8 issues. But once we
identify the
> > >> >> > > requirements,
> > >> >> > > >> we
> > >> >> > > >> > >> can
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > update
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > software to handle them.
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > So please keep the feedback
coming.
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks,
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > John
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:31 PM,
> > >> >> > > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > >> >> > > >> > >> via
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > RT
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > <
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Hi, John,
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> OK, thanks! I thought the
latest
> version
> > >> of
> > >> >> MET
> > >> >> > > >> that we
> > >> >> > > >> > >> were
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > using
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> was
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> configured for the air quality
> > >> applications?
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Perry
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:26 PM,
John
> > >> Halley
> > >> >> > Gotway
> > >> >> > > >> via
> > >> >> > > >> > >> RT <
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Perry,
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > I just grabbed them and ran
the
> > forecast
> > >> >> data
> > >> >> > > >> through
> > >> >> > > >> > >> the
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> plot_data_plane
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > utility. Looks like
specifying the
> > level
> > >> >> as an
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > accumulation
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > type
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> does
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> the
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > trick:
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_
> data_plane
> > >> >> > > >> AWIP3D18.tm00
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > OZCON_1hr.ps
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A1";'
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_
> data_plane
> > >> >> > > >> AWIP3D18.tm00
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > OZCON_8hr.ps
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A8";'
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > The resulting images are
attached.
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Next, I ran pb2nc using the
-index
> > >> option to
> > >> >> > see
> > >> >> > > a
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > description
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > of
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > prepda contents:
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/pb2nc
prepda.
> > >> >> 2017081000 <(201)%20708-1000> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > >> >> > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > >> >> > > >> > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > <(201)%20708-1000>
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > prepda.2017081000.nc
> > >> >> > > /usr/local/met-6.1/share/met/
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > config/PB2NCConfig_default
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > -index -log pb2nc_index.log
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Header variables:
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SID: STATION
> > >> IDENTIFICATION
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: XOB:
LONGITUDE
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: YOB: LATITUDE
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: DHR:
OBSERVATION
> TIME
> > >> MINUS
> > >> >> > > CYCLE
> > >> >> > > >> > TIME
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ELV:
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYP: PREPBUFR
REPORT
> > >> TYPE
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: T29: DATA
DUMP
> REPORT
> > >> TYPE
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ITP:
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Observation
variables:
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: COPO:
CONCENTRATION
> OF
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > POLLUTANT
> > >> >> types:
> > >> >> > > >> AIRNOW
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYPO: TYPE OF
> POLLUTANT
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: CAT: PREPBUFR
DATA
> > LEVEL
> > >> >> > > CATEGORY
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: PROCN: PROCESS
NUMBER
> > FOR
> > >> >> THIS
> > >> >> > MPI
> > >> >> > > >> RUN
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > (OBTAINED
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> FROM
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > SCRIPT)
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SQN: REPORT
SEQUENCE
> > >> NUMBER
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: QCIND: QUALITY
CONTROL
> > >> >> > INDICATION
> > >> >> > > OF
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > FOLLOWING
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DATA types:
AIRNOW
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TSIG: TIME
> SIGNIFICANCE
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: RPT: REPORTED
> > >> OBSERVATION
> > >> >> TIME
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TPHR: TIME
PERIOD OR
> > >> >> > DISPLACEMENT
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > I see the COPO and TPHR
observations
> > >> listed.
> > >> >> > > We'll
> > >> >> > > >> > >> need to
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > update
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > PB2NC code to handle the logic
you've
> > >> >> > described.
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > One option for specifying the
1 vs 8
> > hour
> > >> >> > > >> difference
> > >> >> > > >> > >> would
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > be
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > to
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> mimic
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> how
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > different precip accumulation
> intervals
> > >> are
> > >> >> > > stored
> > >> >> > > >> for
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > gauges.
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> I'll
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> look
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > more into how we might do
that.
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Thanks,
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > John
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:17
PM,
> > >> >> > > >> > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > via
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > RT
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > <
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Hi, John,
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > I was just wondering if you
have
> > found
> > >> and
> > >> >> > > >> received
> > >> >> > > >> > >> these
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > files.
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Thanks!
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Perry
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at
10:30 AM,
> > Perry
> > >> >> > > Shafran -
> > >> >> > > >> > NOAA
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Affiliate
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov>
wrote:
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > I just transferred some
model
> files
> > >> and
> > >> >> an
> > >> >> > ob
> > >> >> > > >> file
> > >> >> > > >> > >> here
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > on
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Theia.
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> All
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > these model files verify
at the
> ob
> > >> time
> > >> >> > here.
> > >> >> > > >> > Have
> > >> >> > > >> > >> a
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > look:
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
/scratch4/NCEPDEV/meso/save/
> > >> >> > > >> > Perry.Shafran/for_john
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Perry
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at
6:55 PM,
> > John
> > >> >> > Halley
> > >> >> > > >> > Gotway
> > >> >> > > >> > >> via
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > RT
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > <
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Hi Perry,
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Can you please point me
to a
> model
> > >> >> output
> > >> >> > > file
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > containing
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > the
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > OZCON
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> fields? Presumably,
these are
> in
> > >> GRIB1
> > >> >> > or 2
> > >> >> > > >> > >> format,
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > and
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > hopefully,
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> there's
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> some flag in the header
that
> will
> > >> >> enable
> > >> >> > us
> > >> >> > > to
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > distinguish
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > between
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> the
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> GRIB
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> records containing 1 and
8 hour
> > >> >> averages.
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> As for the point
observations, I
> > >> >> suspect
> > >> >> > > that
> > >> >> > > >> > we'll
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > need
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > to
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> add
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> logic
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > to
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> PB2NC to distinguish
between
> the 1
> > >> and
> > >> >> 8
> > >> >> > > hour
> > >> >> > > >> > COPO
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > concentrations.
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Perhaps
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> we could update PB2NC to
use the
> > >> TPHR
> > >> >> > values
> > >> >> > > >> to
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > renamed
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > COPO
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> to
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> COPO_1
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > and
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> COPO_8?
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Are these COPO point
> observations
> > >> >> present
> > >> >> > in
> > >> >> > > >> NDAS
> > >> >> > > >> > >> or
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > GDAS
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > PrepBUFR
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > files?
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Thanks,
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> John
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at
1:40 PM,
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > via
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> RT <
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Tue Feb 20 13:40:01
2018:
> > Request
> > >> >> 84134
> > >> >> > > was
> > >> >> > > >> > acted
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > upon.
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Transaction: Ticket
created by
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Queue: met_help
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Subject: verifying
ozone
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Owner: Nobody
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Requestors:
> > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Status: new
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Ticket <URL:
> > >> >> > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Hi, everyone,
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I am helping the AQM
group
> > verify
> > >> >> ozone
> > >> >> > > and
> > >> >> > > >> I
> > >> >> > > >> > >> need
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > some
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> assistance
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > in
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> using
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > PB2NC (and then later
> > point_stat,
> > >> but
> > >> >> > > let's
> > >> >> > > >> > start
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > with
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > PB2NC). I
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > need
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> to
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > be able to read in two
> > quantities
> > >> >> from
> > >> >> > the
> > >> >> > > >> > >> prepbufr
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > file
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > and
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > then
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> combine
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > that to be able to
compare to
> > the
> > >> two
> > >> >> > > model
> > >> >> > > >> > >> items.
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the bufr file, the
> variables
> > at
> > >> >> hand
> > >> >> > > are
> > >> >> > > >> > COPO
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > (the
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > ozone
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> concentration),
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > and also TPHR. TPHR is
either
> > -1
> > >> or
> > >> >> -8
> > >> >> > > >> > >> depending on
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > whether
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> observed
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > ozone is a 1-hr or 8-hr
> average.
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In essence, we have two
> entities
> > >> here
> > >> >> > > >> depending
> > >> >> > > >> > >> on
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > the
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> value of
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > TPHR:
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> the
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > 1-hr average ozone and
the
> 8-hr
> > >> >> average
> > >> >> > > >> ozone.
> > >> >> > > >> > >> But
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > they
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> have
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > same
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > value.
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the model we also
have two
> > >> >> variables.
> > >> >> > > >> Both
> > >> >> > > >> > >> are
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > called
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > OZCON,
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> but
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > the
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > first one in the file
is a
> 1-hr
> > >> >> average
> > >> >> > > and
> > >> >> > > >> the
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > second
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > one
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> is
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 8-hr
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average.
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > The trick here is
verifying
> 1-hr
> > >> >> average
> > >> >> > > >> with
> > >> >> > > >> > >> 1-hr
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > average,
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> and
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> 8-hr
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average with 8-hr
average. I
> > >> think
> > >> >> > there
> > >> >> > > >> is a
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> multiplication
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> factor
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > in
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > there somewhere, as the
obs
> are
> > in
> > >> >> units
> > >> >> > > of
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > mole/mole,
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > while
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > model
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> is
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > in parts per billion
(ppb).
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I don't know if you've
spoken
> > with
> > >> >> the
> > >> >> > AQM
> > >> >> > > >> team
> > >> >> > > >> > >> on
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > how
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> exactly
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> to do
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> this,
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > but I was hoping to
help them
> > with
> > >> >> this.
> > >> >> > > If
> > >> >> > > >> > you
> > >> >> > > >> > >> can
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > advise
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> on
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> how
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > to
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > do
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > this, that would be
great!
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Thanks!
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Perry
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > >> >> > > >> > >
> > >> >> > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >>
> > >> >> > > >>
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: verifying ozone
From: Julie Prestopnik
Time: Fri Mar 23 14:14:03 2018
Hi Perry.
I can reproduce the problem on both tide and our local machine. It
looks
like an issue with the logic in when writing to the NetCDF output
file.
One of our software developers in working on the problem. We will let
you
know when it is resolved.
I will be out of the office this coming Monday - Wednesday, just FYI,
so I
may not be able to recompile on tide until next week.
Regarding your question about the 7.1 beta, I think you are probably
the
only one who knows about the 7.1 beta, but I don't think it would be a
problem if you mentioned it to your colleagues.
Julie
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:20 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
>
> Hi, Julie,
>
> Yikes, it's all part a script, and it's not quite the usage. But
here are
> the commands used from the output:
>
> pb2nc prepda.2018032200 prepda.nc.2018032200
> /meso/save/Perry.Shafran/verif/nwtest/parm/PB2NCConfig -v
> 3
>
> point_stat AWIP3D00.tm00 prepda.nc.2018032200
> /meso/save/Perry.Shafran/verif/nwtest/parm/PointStatConfig_cv -v 3
>
> You can run these if you go to the directory
> /stmpp2/Perry.Shafran/tmpnwtest/verf_gridtobs_nam_00/00.
>
> Thanks!
>
> BTW - am I the only one who knows about the 7.1 beta? In case I'm
not
> supposed to bring it up among my colleagues?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Perry
>
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Julie Prestopnik via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Perry. My apologies for the delay in responding. I was out of
the
> > office.
> > I have copied over your script and would like to run it to see if
I can
> > reproduce the error. I see the usage is:
> >
> > verf_gridtobs.sh $model $vday $vcyc
> >
> > Can you please send me the exact command line you are running so
that I
> can
> > try to reproduce the error? Or, to simply things you could send me
a
> single
> > command line for pb2nc and point_stat so that I can run that. The
latter
> > option would be preferable in case my environment isn't set up as
yours
> is
> > with all necessary items.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Julie
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 2:28 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> > >
> > > Hi there,
> > >
> > > I am trying out the new 7.1 beta, and I got this error in both
pb2nc
> and
> > > point_stat (except for point_stat replace the 146 in the error
with
> 80):
> > >
> > > terminate called after throwing an instance of
> > > 'netCDF::exceptions::NcBadId'
> > > what(): NetCDF: Not a valid ID
> > > file: ncVar.cpp line:146
> > >
/meso/save/Perry.Shafran/verif/nwtest/ush/verf_gridtobs_fits.sh[143]:
> .:
> > > line 217:
> > > 41145: Abort(coredump)
> > >
> > > Any idea what the issue is here?
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > Perry
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Perry Shafran - NOAA Affiliate
<
> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi, Julie,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > Perry
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 2:50 PM, Julie Prestopnik via RT <
> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi Perry.
> > > >>
> > > >> met-7.1_beta1 is now installed on tide. You can access it by
> running
> > > the
> > > >> following:
> > > >>
> > > >> module use /global/noscrub/Julie.Prestopnik/modulefiles
> > > >> module load met/7.1_beta1
> > > >>
> > > >> Please let me know if you have any questions or encounter any
> > problems.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> Julie
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 3:41 PM, John Halley Gotway <
> johnhg at ucar.edu>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Perry and Julie,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I just created a met-7.1_beta1 release to enable Perry to
do the
> > > testing
> > > >> > he needs.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I posted the tarball to the MET website:
> > > >> > www.dtcenter.org/met/users/downloads/MET_releases/met-7.
> > > >> > 1_beta1.20180316.tar.gz
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Perry, I assume it'd be most convenient for you to have
this
> > available
> > > >> on
> > > >> > WCOSS for testing? If not, please let us know where.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Julie, assuming Perry wants it on the dev side of WCOSS,
can you
> > > please
> > > >> > install it in your personal area, and tell Perry how he can
access
> > it?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Here's the very short list of changes included in met-
7.1_beta1
> > (taken
> > > >> > from the top-level README file):
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Version 7.1 BETA 1 Release Notes:
> > > >> > --------------------------------
> > > >> >
> > > >> > - Make logic for finding matching UGRD/VGRD verification
tasks
> more
> > > >> robust
> > > >> > in
> > > >> > Point-Stat and Grid-Stat.
> > > >> > - Fix PB2NC's computation of valid time for AIRNOW
observations.
> > > >> > - Minor bugfix for Series-Analysis when computing min/max
timing
> > info
> > > >> for
> > > >> > series with some missing input files.
> > > >> > - Enable vld_thresh = 0 in Ensemble-Stat and Series-
Analysis.
> > > >> > - Update pntnc2ascii.R Rscript to handle obs_var variable.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thanks,
> > > >> > John
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 6:46 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via
RT <
> > > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Hi, John,
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> At this point my main concern is the ability to run MET
and get
> > good
> > > >> MET
> > > >> >> output on some of the air quality items. Then once that's
done,
> > > worry
> > > >> >> later about METViewer concerns. I do think we'll want to
> > eventually
> > > >> >> compare VSDB vs MET output using METViewer, but that seems
to be
> a
> > > down
> > > >> >> the
> > > >> >> road issue (though not too far down the road, so if there
is a
> > > >> METViewer
> > > >> >> update coming up, put this in it).
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Thanks!
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Perry
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 5:31 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT
<
> > > >> >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > Perry,
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > On Monday, we decided that I should do the first (and
very
> early)
> > > >> beta
> > > >> >> > release of met-7.1 to get this feature to you for
testing. But
> > > this
> > > >> >> > version really shouldn't be used for anything other than
> testing.
> > > >> Since
> > > >> >> > this is a beta version for 7.1, my inclination would be
to
> > > increment
> > > >> the
> > > >> >> > version number of the output now... to 7.1. The only
downside
> is
> > > >> that
> > > >> >> it
> > > >> >> > won't be possible to load 7.1 output in METViewer. The
loader
> > will
> > > >> >> error
> > > >> >> > out and say that it doesn't know anything about version
7.1.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > If you need to be able to load this output into
METViewer, we
> > > should
> > > >> >> keep
> > > >> >> > the version number back at 7.0... but I'm really worried
about
> > > >> >> version-itis
> > > >> >> > here. I don't want to create a confusing mess of
output.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > Any thoughts?
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > Thanks,
> > > >> >> > John
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:57 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov
via
> RT
> > <
> > > >> >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Tic
> ket/Display.html?id=84134
> > >
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > Hi, John,
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > I'm not sure I caught whether you have something for
me to
> test
> > > or
> > > >> >> not.
> > > >> >> > I
> > > >> >> > > think you were asking how to deliver these updates for
ozone
> > so I
> > > >> >> guess
> > > >> >> > you
> > > >> >> > > need to deliver first before I can test anything.
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > Thanks!
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > Perry
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Perry Shafran - NOAA
> Affiliate
> > <
> > > >> >> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > > Hi, John,
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > Super, thanks! Let me know if there are any aspects
of it
> > that
> > > >> need
> > > >> >> > > > clarification.
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > Perry
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:48 PM, John Halley Gotway
via RT <
> > > >> >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > >> Perry,
> > > >> >> > > >>
> > > >> >> > > >> Yes, I received it. Thanks for the info. I wrote
up a
> > > >> development
> > > >> >> > > ticket
> > > >> >> > > >> in JiRA to handle this and Howard Soh is taking a
look at
> > it.
> > > >> I'll
> > > >> >> > let
> > > >> >> > > >> you
> > > >> >> > > >> know when we have an update for you.
> > > >> >> > > >>
> > > >> >> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> >> > > >> John
> > > >> >> > > >>
> > > >> >> > > >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:31 PM,
perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> via
> > > RT <
> > > >> >> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >> >> > > >>
> > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > Hi, John,
> > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > I was just wondering if you got this message
regarding
> the
> > > >> DHR in
> > > >> >> > the
> > > >> >> > > >> ozone
> > > >> >> > > >> > airnow file. I hadn't received any
acknowledgement of
> it.
> > > I
> > > >> >> think
> > > >> >> > > >> that if
> > > >> >> > > >> > we are going to read this data correctly for
> verification,
> > > >> we'll
> > > >> >> > have
> > > >> >> > > >> to be
> > > >> >> > > >> > aware of this and use the DHR to add DHR to the
file's
> > > >> timestamp
> > > >> >> in
> > > >> >> > > >> order
> > > >> >> > > >> > to get the right ob at the right time.
> > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > Thanks!
> > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > Perry
> > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Perry Shafran -
NOAA
> > > >> Affiliate <
> > > >> >> > > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > > Hi, John,
> > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > > For ozone (and for PM likely as well), the DHR
will
> tell
> > > you
> > > >> >> the
> > > >> >> > > time
> > > >> >> > > >> of
> > > >> >> > > >> > > the observation. The DHR ranges from -11 to 12
in
> each
> > > >> file,
> > > >> >> so
> > > >> >> > if
> > > >> >> > > >> you
> > > >> >> > > >> > > have an observation with DHR of -10, for
example, that
> > > >> >> > observations
> > > >> >> > > is
> > > >> >> > > >> > > valid at 02Z. I guess I should have done
better to
> note
> > > >> this
> > > >> >> to
> > > >> >> > you
> > > >> >> > > >> > > previously, but you will need this additional
> > information
> > > in
> > > >> >> order
> > > >> >> > > to
> > > >> >> > > >> get
> > > >> >> > > >> > > the valid time of the observation. My
apologies for
> not
> > > >> >> realizing
> > > >> >> > > >> this
> > > >> >> > > >> > > sooner (like before 7.0 was released).
> > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > > The 00Z valid time (as in your example), I just
> > realized,
> > > >> is a
> > > >> >> > > special
> > > >> >> > > >> > > case. Since the DHR ranges from -11 to 12,
that means
> > > that
> > > >> the
> > > >> >> > > valid
> > > >> >> > > >> > times
> > > >> >> > > >> > > in the file range from 01Z to 00Z the next day.
> That's
> > > the
> > > >> >> reason
> > > >> >> > > for
> > > >> >> > > >> > this
> > > >> >> > > >> > > - it is indeed the 2017080912 <(201)%20708-
0912>
> <(201)%20708-0912>
> > > >> <(201)%20708-0912>
> > > >> >> <(201)%20708-0912> file but this
> > > >> >> > > >> particular
> > > >> >> > > >> > > valid time is 2017081000 <(201)%20708-1000>
> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > >> >> <(201)%20708-1000> because DHR is 12 in
> > > >> >> > > this
> > > >> >> > > >> > > case. So that makes it extra special fun for
> verifying
> > > for
> > > >> the
> > > >> >> > 00Z
> > > >> >> > > >> valid
> > > >> >> > > >> > > time, since we will have to go to the previous
day's
> obs
> > > >> file
> > > >> >> to
> > > >> >> > > >> verify
> > > >> >> > > >> > > that. Every other hour of the day, you won't
see this
> > > >> >> mismatch.
> > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > > Perry
> > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:59 AM, John Halley
Gotway
> via
> > > RT <
> > > >> >> > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> Perry,
> > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> Yes, I see that all the AWIP* GRIB2 files you
sent me
> > are
> > > >> >> valid
> > > >> >> > at
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> 2017081000.
> > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> However, the point observations in the prepda.
> > 2017081000
> > > >> are
> > > >> >> > valid
> > > >> >> > > >> at
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> 20170809_120000. Or at least that's what the
output
> of
> > > >> PB2NC
> > > >> >> > tells
> > > >> >> > > >> me!
> > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> The timestamps of the data contained in
prepda.
> > > 2017081000
> > > >> is
> > > >> >> > > >> 12-hours
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> earlier than the timestamp of that file
indicates.
> > > Here's
> > > >> a
> > > >> >> log
> > > >> >> > > >> message
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> from PB2NC listing out the "center time" for
that
> file:
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> DEBUG 1: Processing Bufr File:
prepda.2017081000
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> DEBUG 2: Bufr Time Center:
20170809_120000
> > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> Perhaps there's a problem in the naming
convention
> for
> > > that
> > > >> >> > > "prepda"
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> file... or perhaps there's a good reason for
the
> > 12-hour
> > > >> >> > offset...
> > > >> >> > > or
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> perhaps there's some problem in the MET code
and
> we're
> > > not
> > > >> >> > reading
> > > >> >> > > >> data
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> from that file correctly?
> > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> Thanks,
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> John
> > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:37 AM,
> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > via
> > > >> >> RT <
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Tic
> > > >> >> ket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > OK, thanks! So this is included in the
latest MET
> > > >> release.
> > > >> >> I
> > > >> >> > > think
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> there
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > will definitely be other questions, if I
want to be
> > > able
> > > >> to
> > > >> >> > > verify
> > > >> >> > > >> > each
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > hourly forecast of ozone with the
observation. The
> > DHR
> > > >> >> tells
> > > >> >> > us
> > > >> >> > > >> which
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> hour
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > that we are looking for to verify.
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > Perry
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:25 AM, John Halley
Gotway
> > via
> > > >> RT <
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > Hi Perry,
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > We just posted the met-7.0 release
yesterday.
> > Julie
> > > >> >> > Prestopnik
> > > >> >> > > >> is
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > actually
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > out at NCEP today, and she'll be the one
to
> install
> > > it
> > > >> on
> > > >> >> > > >> WCOSS. So
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> I'll
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > let her chime in to let us know when she's
able
> to
> > do
> > > >> >> that.
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > Thanks,
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > John
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:27 AM,
> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > >> >> via
> > > >> >> > RT
> > > >> >> > > <
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > >> >> > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > I am able to start working on this
today. Is
> > this
> > > >> >> > available
> > > >> >> > > >> for
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > testing
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > now?
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Also I'm not entirely sure what you mean
in
> that
> > > the
> > > >> obs
> > > >> >> > and
> > > >> >> > > >> the
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> model
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > don't match up well in time? In the
example I
> > sent
> > > >> you,
> > > >> >> > you
> > > >> >> > > >> have
> > > >> >> > > >> > a
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> set
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > of
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > observations and all the forecast files
that
> > verify
> > > >> at
> > > >> >> that
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> particular
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > time. Both the model and observed bufr
file
> have
> > > >> >> 1-hourly
> > > >> >> > > >> fields
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > (hourly
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > fields of 1-hr and hourly fields of 8-hr
ozone
> -
> > > >> kind of
> > > >> >> > hard
> > > >> >> > > >> to
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > imagine
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > that, but they are just values). So we
will
> also
> > > >> need a
> > > >> >> > way
> > > >> >> > > to
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> match
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > up
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > the observed field with the modeled
field at
> the
> > > >> >> > > corresponding
> > > >> >> > > >> > time.
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > (For
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > example, matching the 3-hr forecast from
the
> 12Z
> > > >> model
> > > >> >> run
> > > >> >> > > with
> > > >> >> > > >> > the
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> 15Z
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > observed field.)
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > I think this is best achieved with a
different
> > > >> >> execution of
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> point_stat
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > for
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > each individual hour, because that's how
I do
> > > >> gridtobs
> > > >> >> > > anyway.
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > What are your thoughts on the above?
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Perry
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:32 PM, John
Halley
> > Gotway
> > > >> via
> > > >> >> RT <
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Hi Perry,
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Howard Soh updated the logic in the
PB2NC to
> > > handle
> > > >> >> the 1
> > > >> >> > > and
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> 8-hour
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > COPO
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > observations in the way we discussed.
I
> wanted
> > > to
> > > >> let
> > > >> >> > you
> > > >> >> > > >> know
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> that
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > I
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > tested it this afternoon and got some
good
> > > results.
> > > >> >> The
> > > >> >> > > >> sample
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > fcst/obs
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > data you sent doesn't line up well in
time,
> so
> > I
> > > >> just
> > > >> >> > set a
> > > >> >> > > >> very
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > large
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > matching time window in Point-Stat.
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Here's the relevant pieces of the
Point-Stat
> > > config
> > > >> >> file:
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > fcst = {
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > field = [
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "OZCON"; level = "A01";
},
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "OZCON"; level = "A08";
}
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > ];
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > }
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > obs = {
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > message_type = [ "AIRNOW" ];
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > convert(x) = x*10^9;
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > field = [
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level = "A01";
},
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level = "A08";
}
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > ];
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > }
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > And I'm just *guessing* at that
conversion
> > > factor.
> > > >> >> The
> > > >> >> > > >> > resulting
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > numbers
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > look about right, but its up to you to
> confirm.
> > > >> Using
> > > >> >> > the
> > > >> >> > > >> > sample
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > data
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > you
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > sent me, this results in a mean error
value
> of
> > > >> 12.64
> > > >> >> and
> > > >> >> > > >> 15.48
> > > >> >> > > >> > for
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > the
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > 1
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > and 8-hour accums, respectively. But
the
> > > fcst/obs
> > > >> >> data
> > > >> >> > are
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> actually
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > offset
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > by 12 hours so these numbers don't
mean much,
> > > other
> > > >> >> than
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > demonstrating
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > there isn't a huge order of magnitude
> > difference.
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Thanks,
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > John
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:06 PM, John
Halley
> > > >> Gotway <
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> johnhg at ucar.edu
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > Perry,
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > I think I prefer option 2 as well.
I'll
> ask
> > > >> Howard
> > > >> >> > Soh,
> > > >> >> > > >> one
> > > >> >> > > >> > of
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> the
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > developers here, to add specific
logic for
> > the
> > > >> >> AIRNOW
> > > >> >> > > >> message
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> type,
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > where...
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > - level = absolute value of TPHR
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > - qc flag = QCIND
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > John
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:00 PM,
> > > >> >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > >> >> > > >> via
> > > >> >> > > >> > RT
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> <
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > >> >> > > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Hi, John,
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> What would be easier in comparing
to the
> > model
> > > >> >> output,
> > > >> >> > > do
> > > >> >> > > >> you
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > think?
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > I
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> think that having it as some sort
of
> > > >> "accumulation
> > > >> >> > > >> variable"
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> (the
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > 2nd
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> option) would work.
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> In the model, though, they are not
listed
> as
> > > >> >> either 1
> > > >> >> > or
> > > >> >> > > >> 8 hr
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> accumulations/averages. They are
listed
> as
> > > >> either,
> > > >> >> > for
> > > >> >> > > >> > example
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > for
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > the
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > 24
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> hr forecast, either "23-24 hr ave
fcst" or
> > > >> "16-24
> > > >> >> hr
> > > >> >> > ave
> > > >> >> > > >> > fcst".
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > Would
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > be
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> easier if it said "1 hr ave fcst"
or "8 hr
> > ave
> > > >> >> fcst",
> > > >> >> > > but
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> again,
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > that's
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> not
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> what we got. So I'm guessing that
might
> > make
> > > >> it a
> > > >> >> > > little
> > > >> >> > > >> > more
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > challenging
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> for the model to script up?
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Perry
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:50 PM,
John
> Halley
> > > >> Gotway
> > > >> >> > via
> > > >> >> > > >> RT <
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Perry,
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > I wanted to check how point
observations
> > of
> > > >> >> precip
> > > >> >> > are
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> stored in
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> PrepBUFR
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > so I ran PB2NC on an old NDAS
file using
> > the
> > > >> >> -index
> > > >> >> > > >> option.
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > Here's
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> what I
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > found:
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP06: TOTAL
> PRECIPITATION
> > > >> PAST 6
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > HOURS
types:
> > ADPSFC
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP24: TOTAL
> PRECIPITATION
> > > >> PAST 24
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > HOURS
types:
> > ADPSFC
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > So basically, the accumulation
interval
> > > >> exists in
> > > >> >> > the
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > observation
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> variable
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > name. Following that paradigm,
if the
> > > AIRNOW
> > > >> >> > > >> observations
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> were
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > stored
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > using COPO01 and COPO08, then MET
would
> > > >> already
> > > >> >> be
> > > >> >> > > able
> > > >> >> > > >> to
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > handle
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > them
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > already. But I suppose we're
likely
> stuck
> > > >> with
> > > >> >> what
> > > >> >> > > >> we've
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> got.
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > I can see 2 ways we could handle
this
> for
> > > >> >> processing
> > > >> >> > > >> AIRNOW
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > message
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > types...
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Option 1: Follow the precip
example and
> > > modify
> > > >> >> the
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> observation
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > variable
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > names by appending the TPHR
value.
> > Instead
> > > of
> > > >> >> COPO,
> > > >> >> > > >> we'd
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> have
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> observations
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > named COPO01 and COPO08. And if
we ever
> > see
> > > >> >> TPHR =
> > > >> >> > > -24,
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> that'd
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > produce
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> a
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > COPO24 variable name.
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Option 2: We could keep the COPO
> variable
> > > name
> > > >> >> > > >> unchanged,
> > > >> >> > > >> > and
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > instead
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> set
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the "level" value for these
observations
> > to
> > > >> >> indicate
> > > >> >> > > the
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > accumulation
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > interval. If you look at the
ascii2nc
> > usage
> > > >> >> > > statement,
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> you'll
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > see
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > the
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > following:
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > "Level" is the pressure level
(hPa)
> or
> > > >> >> > accumulation
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> interval
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> (HH[MMSS]).
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > So we could use the value of TPHR
to
> > define
> > > >> the
> > > >> >> > level
> > > >> >> > > >> as an
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> "accumulation"
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > interval.
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Either option could be made to
work in
> > MET.
> > > >> Does
> > > >> >> > one
> > > >> >> > > >> make
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> more
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > sense
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > you than the other?
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > While we're doing this, I assume
we
> should
> > > >> also
> > > >> >> > using
> > > >> >> > > >> the
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> QCIND
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > value
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > populate the obs_qty (i.e.
quality
> > control)
> > > >> >> setting?
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > John
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:34 PM,
John
> > Halley
> > > >> >> Gotway
> > > >> >> > <
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > johnhg at ucar.edu>
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Perry,
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Until users dive into the
details, we
> > > won't
> > > >> >> know
> > > >> >> > > about
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> these
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > sorts
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > of
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> -1
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > vs -8 issues. But once we
identify
> the
> > > >> >> > > requirements,
> > > >> >> > > >> we
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> can
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > update
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > software to handle them.
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > So please keep the feedback
coming.
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks,
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > John
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:31
PM,
> > > >> >> > > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> via
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > RT
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > <
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Hi, John,
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> OK, thanks! I thought the
latest
> > version
> > > >> of
> > > >> >> MET
> > > >> >> > > >> that we
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> were
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > using
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> was
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> configured for the air quality
> > > >> applications?
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Perry
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:26
PM, John
> > > >> Halley
> > > >> >> > Gotway
> > > >> >> > > >> via
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> RT <
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Perry,
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > I just grabbed them and ran
the
> > > forecast
> > > >> >> data
> > > >> >> > > >> through
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> the
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> plot_data_plane
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > utility. Looks like
specifying the
> > > level
> > > >> >> as an
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > accumulation
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > type
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> does
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> the
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > trick:
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_
> > data_plane
> > > >> >> > > >> AWIP3D18.tm00
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > OZCON_1hr.ps
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A1";'
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_
> > data_plane
> > > >> >> > > >> AWIP3D18.tm00
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > OZCON_8hr.ps
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A8";'
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > The resulting images are
attached.
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Next, I ran pb2nc using the
-index
> > > >> option to
> > > >> >> > see
> > > >> >> > > a
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > description
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > of
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > prepda contents:
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/pb2nc
> prepda.
> > > >> >> 2017081000 <(201)%20708-1000> <(201)%20708-1000>
> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > >> >> > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > prepda.2017081000.nc
> > > >> >> > > /usr/local/met-6.1/share/met/
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > config/PB2NCConfig_default
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > -index -log pb2nc_index.log
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Header
variables:
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SID:
STATION
> > > >> IDENTIFICATION
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: XOB:
LONGITUDE
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: YOB:
LATITUDE
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: DHR:
OBSERVATION
> > TIME
> > > >> MINUS
> > > >> >> > > CYCLE
> > > >> >> > > >> > TIME
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ELV:
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYP:
PREPBUFR
> REPORT
> > > >> TYPE
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: T29: DATA
DUMP
> > REPORT
> > > >> TYPE
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ITP:
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Observation
variables:
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: COPO:
CONCENTRATION
> > OF
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > POLLUTANT
> > > >> >> types:
> > > >> >> > > >> AIRNOW
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYPO: TYPE
OF
> > POLLUTANT
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: CAT:
PREPBUFR DATA
> > > LEVEL
> > > >> >> > > CATEGORY
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: PROCN:
PROCESS
> NUMBER
> > > FOR
> > > >> >> THIS
> > > >> >> > MPI
> > > >> >> > > >> RUN
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > (OBTAINED
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> FROM
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > SCRIPT)
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SQN: REPORT
> SEQUENCE
> > > >> NUMBER
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: QCIND:
QUALITY
> CONTROL
> > > >> >> > INDICATION
> > > >> >> > > OF
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > FOLLOWING
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DATA types:
AIRNOW
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TSIG: TIME
> > SIGNIFICANCE
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: RPT:
REPORTED
> > > >> OBSERVATION
> > > >> >> TIME
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TPHR: TIME
PERIOD
> OR
> > > >> >> > DISPLACEMENT
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > I see the COPO and TPHR
> observations
> > > >> listed.
> > > >> >> > > We'll
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> need to
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > update
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > PB2NC code to handle the
logic
> you've
> > > >> >> > described.
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > One option for specifying
the 1 vs
> 8
> > > hour
> > > >> >> > > >> difference
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> would
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > be
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > to
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> mimic
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> how
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > different precip
accumulation
> > intervals
> > > >> are
> > > >> >> > > stored
> > > >> >> > > >> for
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > gauges.
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> I'll
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> look
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > more into how we might do
that.
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Thanks,
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > John
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at
12:17 PM,
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > via
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > RT
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > <
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > <URL:
> https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Hi, John,
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > I was just wondering if
you have
> > > found
> > > >> and
> > > >> >> > > >> received
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> these
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > files.
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Thanks!
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Perry
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at
10:30 AM,
> > > Perry
> > > >> >> > > Shafran -
> > > >> >> > > >> > NOAA
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Affiliate
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov>
wrote:
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > I just transferred some
model
> > files
> > > >> and
> > > >> >> an
> > > >> >> > ob
> > > >> >> > > >> file
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> here
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > on
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Theia.
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> All
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > these model files verify
at the
> > ob
> > > >> time
> > > >> >> > here.
> > > >> >> > > >> > Have
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> a
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > look:
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
/scratch4/NCEPDEV/meso/save/
> > > >> >> > > >> > Perry.Shafran/for_john
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Perry
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at
6:55
> PM,
> > > John
> > > >> >> > Halley
> > > >> >> > > >> > Gotway
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> via
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > RT
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > <
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu>
wrote:
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Hi Perry,
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Can you please point me
to a
> > model
> > > >> >> output
> > > >> >> > > file
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > containing
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > OZCON
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> fields? Presumably,
these are
> > in
> > > >> GRIB1
> > > >> >> > or 2
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> format,
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > and
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > hopefully,
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> there's
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> some flag in the header
that
> > will
> > > >> >> enable
> > > >> >> > us
> > > >> >> > > to
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > distinguish
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > between
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> the
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> GRIB
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> records containing 1
and 8
> hour
> > > >> >> averages.
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> As for the point
> observations, I
> > > >> >> suspect
> > > >> >> > > that
> > > >> >> > > >> > we'll
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > need
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > to
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> add
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> logic
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > to
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> PB2NC to distinguish
between
> > the 1
> > > >> and
> > > >> >> 8
> > > >> >> > > hour
> > > >> >> > > >> > COPO
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > concentrations.
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Perhaps
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> we could update PB2NC
to use
> the
> > > >> TPHR
> > > >> >> > values
> > > >> >> > > >> to
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > renamed
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > COPO
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> to
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> COPO_1
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > and
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> COPO_8?
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Are these COPO point
> > observations
> > > >> >> present
> > > >> >> > in
> > > >> >> > > >> NDAS
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> or
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > GDAS
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > PrepBUFR
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > files?
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> John
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at
1:40
> PM,
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > via
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> RT <
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu>
wrote:
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Tue Feb 20 13:40:01
2018:
> > > Request
> > > >> >> 84134
> > > >> >> > > was
> > > >> >> > > >> > acted
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > upon.
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Transaction: Ticket
created
> by
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Queue:
met_help
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Subject:
verifying
> ozone
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Owner: Nobody
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Requestors:
> > > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Status: new
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Ticket <URL:
> > > >> >> > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Hi, everyone,
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I am helping the AQM
group
> > > verify
> > > >> >> ozone
> > > >> >> > > and
> > > >> >> > > >> I
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> need
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > some
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> assistance
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > in
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> using
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > PB2NC (and then later
> > > point_stat,
> > > >> but
> > > >> >> > > let's
> > > >> >> > > >> > start
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > with
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > PB2NC). I
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > need
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> to
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > be able to read in
two
> > > quantities
> > > >> >> from
> > > >> >> > the
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> prepbufr
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > file
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > then
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> combine
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > that to be able to
compare
> to
> > > the
> > > >> two
> > > >> >> > > model
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> items.
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the bufr file, the
> > variables
> > > at
> > > >> >> hand
> > > >> >> > > are
> > > >> >> > > >> > COPO
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > (the
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > ozone
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> concentration),
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > and also TPHR. TPHR
is
> either
> > > -1
> > > >> or
> > > >> >> -8
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> depending on
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > whether
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> observed
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > ozone is a 1-hr or 8-
hr
> > average.
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In essence, we have
two
> > entities
> > > >> here
> > > >> >> > > >> depending
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> on
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > the
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> value of
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > TPHR:
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> the
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > 1-hr average ozone
and the
> > 8-hr
> > > >> >> average
> > > >> >> > > >> ozone.
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> But
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > they
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> have
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > same
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > value.
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the model we also
have
> two
> > > >> >> variables.
> > > >> >> > > >> Both
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> are
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > called
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > OZCON,
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> but
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > the
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > first one in the file
is a
> > 1-hr
> > > >> >> average
> > > >> >> > > and
> > > >> >> > > >> the
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > second
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > one
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> is
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 8-hr
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average.
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > The trick here is
verifying
> > 1-hr
> > > >> >> average
> > > >> >> > > >> with
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> 1-hr
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > average,
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> and
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> 8-hr
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average with 8-hr
average.
> I
> > > >> think
> > > >> >> > there
> > > >> >> > > >> is a
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> multiplication
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> factor
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > in
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > there somewhere, as
the obs
> > are
> > > in
> > > >> >> units
> > > >> >> > > of
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > mole/mole,
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > while
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > model
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> is
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > in parts per billion
(ppb).
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I don't know if
you've
> spoken
> > > with
> > > >> >> the
> > > >> >> > AQM
> > > >> >> > > >> team
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> on
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > how
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> exactly
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> to do
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> this,
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > but I was hoping to
help
> them
> > > with
> > > >> >> this.
> > > >> >> > > If
> > > >> >> > > >> > you
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> can
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > advise
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> on
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> how
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > to
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > do
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > this, that would be
great!
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Thanks!
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Perry
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > >>
> > > >> >> > > >>
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: verifying ozone
From: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
Time: Fri Mar 23 14:19:49 2018
Hi, Julie,
Thanks!
Perry
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Julie Prestopnik via RT
<met_help at ucar.edu>
wrote:
> Hi Perry.
>
> I can reproduce the problem on both tide and our local machine. It
looks
> like an issue with the logic in when writing to the NetCDF output
file.
> One of our software developers in working on the problem. We will
let you
> know when it is resolved.
>
> I will be out of the office this coming Monday - Wednesday, just
FYI, so I
> may not be able to recompile on tide until next week.
>
> Regarding your question about the 7.1 beta, I think you are probably
the
> only one who knows about the 7.1 beta, but I don't think it would be
a
> problem if you mentioned it to your colleagues.
>
> Julie
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:20 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> >
> > Hi, Julie,
> >
> > Yikes, it's all part a script, and it's not quite the usage. But
here
> are
> > the commands used from the output:
> >
> > pb2nc prepda.2018032200 prepda.nc.2018032200
> > /meso/save/Perry.Shafran/verif/nwtest/parm/PB2NCConfig -v
> > 3
> >
> > point_stat AWIP3D00.tm00 prepda.nc.2018032200
> > /meso/save/Perry.Shafran/verif/nwtest/parm/PointStatConfig_cv -v 3
> >
> > You can run these if you go to the directory
> > /stmpp2/Perry.Shafran/tmpnwtest/verf_gridtobs_nam_00/00.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > BTW - am I the only one who knows about the 7.1 beta? In case I'm
not
> > supposed to bring it up among my colleagues?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Perry
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Julie Prestopnik via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Perry. My apologies for the delay in responding. I was out
of the
> > > office.
> > > I have copied over your script and would like to run it to see
if I can
> > > reproduce the error. I see the usage is:
> > >
> > > verf_gridtobs.sh $model $vday $vcyc
> > >
> > > Can you please send me the exact command line you are running so
that I
> > can
> > > try to reproduce the error? Or, to simply things you could send
me a
> > single
> > > command line for pb2nc and point_stat so that I can run that.
The
> latter
> > > option would be preferable in case my environment isn't set up
as yours
> > is
> > > with all necessary items.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > Julie
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 2:28 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
>
> > > >
> > > > Hi there,
> > > >
> > > > I am trying out the new 7.1 beta, and I got this error in both
pb2nc
> > and
> > > > point_stat (except for point_stat replace the 146 in the error
with
> > 80):
> > > >
> > > > terminate called after throwing an instance of
> > > > 'netCDF::exceptions::NcBadId'
> > > > what(): NetCDF: Not a valid ID
> > > > file: ncVar.cpp line:146
> > > > /meso/save/Perry.Shafran/verif/nwtest/ush/verf_
> gridtobs_fits.sh[143]:
> > .:
> > > > line 217:
> > > > 41145: Abort(coredump)
> > > >
> > > > Any idea what the issue is here?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > Perry
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Perry Shafran - NOAA
Affiliate <
> > > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi, Julie,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > >
> > > > > Perry
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 2:50 PM, Julie Prestopnik via RT <
> > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hi Perry.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> met-7.1_beta1 is now installed on tide. You can access it
by
> > running
> > > > the
> > > > >> following:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> module use /global/noscrub/Julie.Prestopnik/modulefiles
> > > > >> module load met/7.1_beta1
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Please let me know if you have any questions or encounter
any
> > > problems.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > >> Julie
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 3:41 PM, John Halley Gotway <
> > johnhg at ucar.edu>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Perry and Julie,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I just created a met-7.1_beta1 release to enable Perry to
do the
> > > > testing
> > > > >> > he needs.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I posted the tarball to the MET website:
> > > > >> > www.dtcenter.org/met/users/downloads/MET_releases/met-
7.
> > > > >> > 1_beta1.20180316.tar.gz
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Perry, I assume it'd be most convenient for you to have
this
> > > available
> > > > >> on
> > > > >> > WCOSS for testing? If not, please let us know where.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Julie, assuming Perry wants it on the dev side of WCOSS,
can you
> > > > please
> > > > >> > install it in your personal area, and tell Perry how he
can
> access
> > > it?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Here's the very short list of changes included in met-
7.1_beta1
> > > (taken
> > > > >> > from the top-level README file):
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Version 7.1 BETA 1 Release Notes:
> > > > >> > --------------------------------
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > - Make logic for finding matching UGRD/VGRD verification
tasks
> > more
> > > > >> robust
> > > > >> > in
> > > > >> > Point-Stat and Grid-Stat.
> > > > >> > - Fix PB2NC's computation of valid time for AIRNOW
observations.
> > > > >> > - Minor bugfix for Series-Analysis when computing min/max
timing
> > > info
> > > > >> for
> > > > >> > series with some missing input files.
> > > > >> > - Enable vld_thresh = 0 in Ensemble-Stat and Series-
Analysis.
> > > > >> > - Update pntnc2ascii.R Rscript to handle obs_var
variable.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > >> > John
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 6:46 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov
via RT
> <
> > > > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> >
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Hi, John,
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> At this point my main concern is the ability to run MET
and get
> > > good
> > > > >> MET
> > > > >> >> output on some of the air quality items. Then once
that's
> done,
> > > > worry
> > > > >> >> later about METViewer concerns. I do think we'll want
to
> > > eventually
> > > > >> >> compare VSDB vs MET output using METViewer, but that
seems to
> be
> > a
> > > > down
> > > > >> >> the
> > > > >> >> road issue (though not too far down the road, so if
there is a
> > > > >> METViewer
> > > > >> >> update coming up, put this in it).
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Thanks!
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Perry
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 5:31 PM, John Halley Gotway via
RT <
> > > > >> >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> > Perry,
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > On Monday, we decided that I should do the first (and
very
> > early)
> > > > >> beta
> > > > >> >> > release of met-7.1 to get this feature to you for
testing.
> But
> > > > this
> > > > >> >> > version really shouldn't be used for anything other
than
> > testing.
> > > > >> Since
> > > > >> >> > this is a beta version for 7.1, my inclination would
be to
> > > > increment
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> >> > version number of the output now... to 7.1. The only
> downside
> > is
> > > > >> that
> > > > >> >> it
> > > > >> >> > won't be possible to load 7.1 output in METViewer.
The
> loader
> > > will
> > > > >> >> error
> > > > >> >> > out and say that it doesn't know anything about
version 7.1.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > If you need to be able to load this output into
METViewer, we
> > > > should
> > > > >> >> keep
> > > > >> >> > the version number back at 7.0... but I'm really
worried
> about
> > > > >> >> version-itis
> > > > >> >> > here. I don't want to create a confusing mess of
output.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > Any thoughts?
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > Thanks,
> > > > >> >> > John
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:57 AM,
perry.shafran at noaa.gov via
> > RT
> > > <
> > > > >> >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Tic
> > ket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > >
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > Hi, John,
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > I'm not sure I caught whether you have something for
me to
> > test
> > > > or
> > > > >> >> not.
> > > > >> >> > I
> > > > >> >> > > think you were asking how to deliver these updates
for
> ozone
> > > so I
> > > > >> >> guess
> > > > >> >> > you
> > > > >> >> > > need to deliver first before I can test anything.
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > Thanks!
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > Perry
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Perry Shafran - NOAA
> > Affiliate
> > > <
> > > > >> >> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > > Hi, John,
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > Super, thanks! Let me know if there are any
aspects of
> it
> > > that
> > > > >> need
> > > > >> >> > > > clarification.
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > Perry
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:48 PM, John Halley Gotway
via
> RT <
> > > > >> >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> Perry,
> > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> Yes, I received it. Thanks for the info. I
wrote up a
> > > > >> development
> > > > >> >> > > ticket
> > > > >> >> > > >> in JiRA to handle this and Howard Soh is taking a
look
> at
> > > it.
> > > > >> I'll
> > > > >> >> > let
> > > > >> >> > > >> you
> > > > >> >> > > >> know when we have an update for you.
> > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> Thanks,
> > > > >> >> > > >> John
> > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:31 PM,
perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > via
> > > > RT <
> > > > >> >> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > Hi, John,
> > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > I was just wondering if you got this message
regarding
> > the
> > > > >> DHR in
> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > >> >> > > >> ozone
> > > > >> >> > > >> > airnow file. I hadn't received any
acknowledgement of
> > it.
> > > > I
> > > > >> >> think
> > > > >> >> > > >> that if
> > > > >> >> > > >> > we are going to read this data correctly for
> > verification,
> > > > >> we'll
> > > > >> >> > have
> > > > >> >> > > >> to be
> > > > >> >> > > >> > aware of this and use the DHR to add DHR to the
file's
> > > > >> timestamp
> > > > >> >> in
> > > > >> >> > > >> order
> > > > >> >> > > >> > to get the right ob at the right time.
> > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > Thanks!
> > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > Perry
> > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Perry Shafran
- NOAA
> > > > >> Affiliate <
> > > > >> >> > > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > > Hi, John,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > > For ozone (and for PM likely as well), the
DHR will
> > tell
> > > > you
> > > > >> >> the
> > > > >> >> > > time
> > > > >> >> > > >> of
> > > > >> >> > > >> > > the observation. The DHR ranges from -11 to
12 in
> > each
> > > > >> file,
> > > > >> >> so
> > > > >> >> > if
> > > > >> >> > > >> you
> > > > >> >> > > >> > > have an observation with DHR of -10, for
example,
> that
> > > > >> >> > observations
> > > > >> >> > > is
> > > > >> >> > > >> > > valid at 02Z. I guess I should have done
better to
> > note
> > > > >> this
> > > > >> >> to
> > > > >> >> > you
> > > > >> >> > > >> > > previously, but you will need this additional
> > > information
> > > > in
> > > > >> >> order
> > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > >> >> > > >> get
> > > > >> >> > > >> > > the valid time of the observation. My
apologies for
> > not
> > > > >> >> realizing
> > > > >> >> > > >> this
> > > > >> >> > > >> > > sooner (like before 7.0 was released).
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > > The 00Z valid time (as in your example), I
just
> > > realized,
> > > > >> is a
> > > > >> >> > > special
> > > > >> >> > > >> > > case. Since the DHR ranges from -11 to 12,
that
> means
> > > > that
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> >> > > valid
> > > > >> >> > > >> > times
> > > > >> >> > > >> > > in the file range from 01Z to 00Z the next
day.
> > That's
> > > > the
> > > > >> >> reason
> > > > >> >> > > for
> > > > >> >> > > >> > this
> > > > >> >> > > >> > > - it is indeed the 2017080912 <(201)%20708-
0912>
> > <(201)%20708-0912>
> > > > >> <(201)%20708-0912>
> > > > >> >> <(201)%20708-0912> file but this
> > > > >> >> > > >> particular
> > > > >> >> > > >> > > valid time is 2017081000 <(201)%20708-1000>
> > <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > >> >> <(201)%20708-1000> because DHR is 12 in
> > > > >> >> > > this
> > > > >> >> > > >> > > case. So that makes it extra special fun for
> > verifying
> > > > for
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> >> > 00Z
> > > > >> >> > > >> valid
> > > > >> >> > > >> > > time, since we will have to go to the
previous day's
> > obs
> > > > >> file
> > > > >> >> to
> > > > >> >> > > >> verify
> > > > >> >> > > >> > > that. Every other hour of the day, you won't
see
> this
> > > > >> >> mismatch.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > > Perry
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:59 AM, John Halley
Gotway
> > via
> > > > RT <
> > > > >> >> > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> Perry,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> Yes, I see that all the AWIP* GRIB2 files
you sent
> me
> > > are
> > > > >> >> valid
> > > > >> >> > at
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> 2017081000.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> However, the point observations in the
prepda.
> > > 2017081000
> > > > >> are
> > > > >> >> > valid
> > > > >> >> > > >> at
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> 20170809_120000. Or at least that's what
the
> output
> > of
> > > > >> PB2NC
> > > > >> >> > tells
> > > > >> >> > > >> me!
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> The timestamps of the data contained in
prepda.
> > > > 2017081000
> > > > >> is
> > > > >> >> > > >> 12-hours
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> earlier than the timestamp of that file
indicates.
> > > > Here's
> > > > >> a
> > > > >> >> log
> > > > >> >> > > >> message
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> from PB2NC listing out the "center time" for
that
> > file:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> DEBUG 1: Processing Bufr File: prepda.
> 2017081000
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> DEBUG 2: Bufr Time Center:
20170809_120000
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> Perhaps there's a problem in the naming
convention
> > for
> > > > that
> > > > >> >> > > "prepda"
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> file... or perhaps there's a good reason for
the
> > > 12-hour
> > > > >> >> > offset...
> > > > >> >> > > or
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> perhaps there's some problem in the MET code
and
> > we're
> > > > not
> > > > >> >> > reading
> > > > >> >> > > >> data
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> from that file correctly?
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> Thanks,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> John
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:37 AM,
> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > via
> > > > >> >> RT <
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Tic
> > > > >> >> ket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > OK, thanks! So this is included in the
latest
> MET
> > > > >> release.
> > > > >> >> I
> > > > >> >> > > think
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> there
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > will definitely be other questions, if I
want to
> be
> > > > able
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> >> > > verify
> > > > >> >> > > >> > each
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > hourly forecast of ozone with the
observation.
> The
> > > DHR
> > > > >> >> tells
> > > > >> >> > us
> > > > >> >> > > >> which
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> hour
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > that we are looking for to verify.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > Perry
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:25 AM, John
Halley
> Gotway
> > > via
> > > > >> RT <
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > Hi Perry,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > We just posted the met-7.0 release
yesterday.
> > > Julie
> > > > >> >> > Prestopnik
> > > > >> >> > > >> is
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > actually
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > out at NCEP today, and she'll be the one
to
> > install
> > > > it
> > > > >> on
> > > > >> >> > > >> WCOSS. So
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> I'll
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > let her chime in to let us know when
she's able
> > to
> > > do
> > > > >> >> that.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > Thanks,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > John
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:27 AM,
> > > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > >> >> via
> > > > >> >> > RT
> > > > >> >> > > <
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > >> >> > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > I am able to start working on this
today. Is
> > > this
> > > > >> >> > available
> > > > >> >> > > >> for
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > testing
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > now?
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Also I'm not entirely sure what you
mean in
> > that
> > > > the
> > > > >> obs
> > > > >> >> > and
> > > > >> >> > > >> the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> model
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > don't match up well in time? In the
example
> I
> > > sent
> > > > >> you,
> > > > >> >> > you
> > > > >> >> > > >> have
> > > > >> >> > > >> > a
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> set
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > of
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > observations and all the forecast
files that
> > > verify
> > > > >> at
> > > > >> >> that
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> particular
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > time. Both the model and observed
bufr file
> > have
> > > > >> >> 1-hourly
> > > > >> >> > > >> fields
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > (hourly
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > fields of 1-hr and hourly fields of 8-
hr
> ozone
> > -
> > > > >> kind of
> > > > >> >> > hard
> > > > >> >> > > >> to
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > imagine
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > that, but they are just values). So
we will
> > also
> > > > >> need a
> > > > >> >> > way
> > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> match
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > up
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > the observed field with the modeled
field at
> > the
> > > > >> >> > > corresponding
> > > > >> >> > > >> > time.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > (For
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > example, matching the 3-hr forecast
from the
> > 12Z
> > > > >> model
> > > > >> >> run
> > > > >> >> > > with
> > > > >> >> > > >> > the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> 15Z
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > observed field.)
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > I think this is best achieved with a
> different
> > > > >> >> execution of
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> point_stat
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > for
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > each individual hour, because that's
how I do
> > > > >> gridtobs
> > > > >> >> > > anyway.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > What are your thoughts on the above?
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Perry
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:32 PM, John
Halley
> > > Gotway
> > > > >> via
> > > > >> >> RT <
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Hi Perry,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Howard Soh updated the logic in the
PB2NC
> to
> > > > handle
> > > > >> >> the 1
> > > > >> >> > > and
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> 8-hour
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > COPO
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > observations in the way we
discussed. I
> > wanted
> > > > to
> > > > >> let
> > > > >> >> > you
> > > > >> >> > > >> know
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> that
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > I
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > tested it this afternoon and got
some good
> > > > results.
> > > > >> >> The
> > > > >> >> > > >> sample
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > fcst/obs
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > data you sent doesn't line up well
in time,
> > so
> > > I
> > > > >> just
> > > > >> >> > set a
> > > > >> >> > > >> very
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > large
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > matching time window in Point-Stat.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Here's the relevant pieces of the
> Point-Stat
> > > > config
> > > > >> >> file:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > fcst = {
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > field = [
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "OZCON"; level =
"A01"; },
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "OZCON"; level =
"A08"; }
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > ];
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > }
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > obs = {
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > message_type = [ "AIRNOW" ];
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > convert(x) = x*10^9;
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > field = [
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level =
"A01"; },
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level =
"A08"; }
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > ];
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > }
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > And I'm just *guessing* at that
conversion
> > > > factor.
> > > > >> >> The
> > > > >> >> > > >> > resulting
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > numbers
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > look about right, but its up to you
to
> > confirm.
> > > > >> Using
> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > sample
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > data
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > you
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > sent me, this results in a mean
error value
> > of
> > > > >> 12.64
> > > > >> >> and
> > > > >> >> > > >> 15.48
> > > > >> >> > > >> > for
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > 1
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > and 8-hour accums, respectively.
But the
> > > > fcst/obs
> > > > >> >> data
> > > > >> >> > are
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> actually
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > offset
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > by 12 hours so these numbers don't
mean
> much,
> > > > other
> > > > >> >> than
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > demonstrating
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > there isn't a huge order of
magnitude
> > > difference.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > John
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:06 PM,
John
> Halley
> > > > >> Gotway <
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> johnhg at ucar.edu
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > Perry,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > I think I prefer option 2 as well.
I'll
> > ask
> > > > >> Howard
> > > > >> >> > Soh,
> > > > >> >> > > >> one
> > > > >> >> > > >> > of
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > developers here, to add specific
logic
> for
> > > the
> > > > >> >> AIRNOW
> > > > >> >> > > >> message
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> type,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > where...
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > - level = absolute value of
TPHR
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > - qc flag = QCIND
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > John
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:00 PM,
> > > > >> >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > >> >> > > >> via
> > > > >> >> > > >> > RT
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> <
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > >> >> > > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Hi, John,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> What would be easier in comparing
to the
> > > model
> > > > >> >> output,
> > > > >> >> > > do
> > > > >> >> > > >> you
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > think?
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > I
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> think that having it as some sort
of
> > > > >> "accumulation
> > > > >> >> > > >> variable"
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> (the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > 2nd
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> option) would work.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> In the model, though, they are
not
> listed
> > as
> > > > >> >> either 1
> > > > >> >> > or
> > > > >> >> > > >> 8 hr
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> accumulations/averages. They are
listed
> > as
> > > > >> either,
> > > > >> >> > for
> > > > >> >> > > >> > example
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > for
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > 24
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> hr forecast, either "23-24 hr ave
fcst"
> or
> > > > >> "16-24
> > > > >> >> hr
> > > > >> >> > ave
> > > > >> >> > > >> > fcst".
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > Would
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > be
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> easier if it said "1 hr ave fcst"
or "8
> hr
> > > ave
> > > > >> >> fcst",
> > > > >> >> > > but
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> again,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > that's
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> not
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> what we got. So I'm guessing
that might
> > > make
> > > > >> it a
> > > > >> >> > > little
> > > > >> >> > > >> > more
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > challenging
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> for the model to script up?
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Perry
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:50 PM,
John
> > Halley
> > > > >> Gotway
> > > > >> >> > via
> > > > >> >> > > >> RT <
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Perry,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > I wanted to check how point
> observations
> > > of
> > > > >> >> precip
> > > > >> >> > are
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> stored in
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> PrepBUFR
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > so I ran PB2NC on an old NDAS
file
> using
> > > the
> > > > >> >> -index
> > > > >> >> > > >> option.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > Here's
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> what I
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > found:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP06: TOTAL
> > PRECIPITATION
> > > > >> PAST 6
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > HOURS
types:
> > > ADPSFC
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP24: TOTAL
> > PRECIPITATION
> > > > >> PAST 24
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > HOURS
types:
> > > ADPSFC
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > So basically, the accumulation
> interval
> > > > >> exists in
> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > observation
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> variable
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > name. Following that paradigm,
if the
> > > > AIRNOW
> > > > >> >> > > >> observations
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> were
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > stored
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > using COPO01 and COPO08, then
MET
> would
> > > > >> already
> > > > >> >> be
> > > > >> >> > > able
> > > > >> >> > > >> to
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > handle
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > them
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > already. But I suppose we're
likely
> > stuck
> > > > >> with
> > > > >> >> what
> > > > >> >> > > >> we've
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> got.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > I can see 2 ways we could
handle this
> > for
> > > > >> >> processing
> > > > >> >> > > >> AIRNOW
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > message
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > types...
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Option 1: Follow the precip
example
> and
> > > > modify
> > > > >> >> the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> observation
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > variable
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > names by appending the TPHR
value.
> > > Instead
> > > > of
> > > > >> >> COPO,
> > > > >> >> > > >> we'd
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> have
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> observations
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > named COPO01 and COPO08. And
if we
> ever
> > > see
> > > > >> >> TPHR =
> > > > >> >> > > -24,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> that'd
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > produce
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> a
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > COPO24 variable name.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Option 2: We could keep the
COPO
> > variable
> > > > name
> > > > >> >> > > >> unchanged,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > and
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > instead
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> set
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the "level" value for these
> observations
> > > to
> > > > >> >> indicate
> > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > accumulation
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > interval. If you look at the
ascii2nc
> > > usage
> > > > >> >> > > statement,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> you'll
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > see
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > following:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > "Level" is the pressure
level (hPa)
> > or
> > > > >> >> > accumulation
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> interval
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> (HH[MMSS]).
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > So we could use the value of
TPHR to
> > > define
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> >> > level
> > > > >> >> > > >> as an
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> "accumulation"
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > interval.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Either option could be made to
work in
> > > MET.
> > > > >> Does
> > > > >> >> > one
> > > > >> >> > > >> make
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> more
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > sense
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > you than the other?
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > While we're doing this, I
assume we
> > should
> > > > >> also
> > > > >> >> > using
> > > > >> >> > > >> the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> QCIND
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > value
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > populate the obs_qty (i.e.
quality
> > > control)
> > > > >> >> setting?
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > John
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:34
PM, John
> > > Halley
> > > > >> >> Gotway
> > > > >> >> > <
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > johnhg at ucar.edu>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Perry,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Until users dive into the
details,
> we
> > > > won't
> > > > >> >> know
> > > > >> >> > > about
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> these
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > sorts
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > of
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> -1
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > vs -8 issues. But once we
identify
> > the
> > > > >> >> > > requirements,
> > > > >> >> > > >> we
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> can
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > update
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > software to handle them.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > So please keep the feedback
coming.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > John
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:31
PM,
> > > > >> >> > > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> via
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > RT
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > <
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Hi, John,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> OK, thanks! I thought the
latest
> > > version
> > > > >> of
> > > > >> >> MET
> > > > >> >> > > >> that we
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> were
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > using
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> was
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> configured for the air
quality
> > > > >> applications?
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Perry
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:26
PM,
> John
> > > > >> Halley
> > > > >> >> > Gotway
> > > > >> >> > > >> via
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> RT <
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Perry,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > I just grabbed them and
ran the
> > > > forecast
> > > > >> >> data
> > > > >> >> > > >> through
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> plot_data_plane
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > utility. Looks like
specifying
> the
> > > > level
> > > > >> >> as an
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > accumulation
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > type
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> does
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > trick:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-
6.1/bin/plot_
> > > data_plane
> > > > >> >> > > >> AWIP3D18.tm00
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > OZCON_1hr.ps
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON";
level="A1";'
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-
6.1/bin/plot_
> > > data_plane
> > > > >> >> > > >> AWIP3D18.tm00
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > OZCON_8hr.ps
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON";
level="A8";'
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > The resulting images are
> attached.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Next, I ran pb2nc using
the
> -index
> > > > >> option to
> > > > >> >> > see
> > > > >> >> > > a
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > description
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > of
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > prepda contents:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-
6.1/bin/pb2nc
> > prepda.
> > > > >> >> 2017081000 <(201)%20708-1000> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > >> >> > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > prepda.2017081000.nc
> > > > >> >> > > /usr/local/met-6.1/share/met/
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > config/PB2NCConfig_default
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > -index -log
pb2nc_index.log
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Header
variables:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SID:
STATION
> > > > >> IDENTIFICATION
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: XOB:
LONGITUDE
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: YOB:
LATITUDE
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: DHR:
OBSERVATION
> > > TIME
> > > > >> MINUS
> > > > >> >> > > CYCLE
> > > > >> >> > > >> > TIME
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ELV:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYP:
PREPBUFR
> > REPORT
> > > > >> TYPE
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: T29: DATA
DUMP
> > > REPORT
> > > > >> TYPE
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ITP:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Observation
> variables:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: COPO:
> CONCENTRATION
> > > OF
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > POLLUTANT
> > > > >> >> types:
> > > > >> >> > > >> AIRNOW
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYPO: TYPE
OF
> > > POLLUTANT
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: CAT:
PREPBUFR
> DATA
> > > > LEVEL
> > > > >> >> > > CATEGORY
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: PROCN:
PROCESS
> > NUMBER
> > > > FOR
> > > > >> >> THIS
> > > > >> >> > MPI
> > > > >> >> > > >> RUN
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > (OBTAINED
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> FROM
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > SCRIPT)
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SQN:
REPORT
> > SEQUENCE
> > > > >> NUMBER
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: QCIND:
QUALITY
> > CONTROL
> > > > >> >> > INDICATION
> > > > >> >> > > OF
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > FOLLOWING
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DATA types:
AIRNOW
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TSIG: TIME
> > > SIGNIFICANCE
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: RPT:
REPORTED
> > > > >> OBSERVATION
> > > > >> >> TIME
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TPHR: TIME
PERIOD
> > OR
> > > > >> >> > DISPLACEMENT
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > I see the COPO and TPHR
> > observations
> > > > >> listed.
> > > > >> >> > > We'll
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> need to
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > update
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > PB2NC code to handle the
logic
> > you've
> > > > >> >> > described.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > One option for specifying
the 1
> vs
> > 8
> > > > hour
> > > > >> >> > > >> difference
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> would
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > be
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> mimic
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> how
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > different precip
accumulation
> > > intervals
> > > > >> are
> > > > >> >> > > stored
> > > > >> >> > > >> for
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > gauges.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> I'll
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> look
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > more into how we might do
that.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Thanks,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > John
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at
12:17 PM,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > via
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > RT
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > <
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > <URL:
> > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Hi, John,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > I was just wondering if
you
> have
> > > > found
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> >> > > >> received
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> these
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > files.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Thanks!
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Perry
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at
10:30
> AM,
> > > > Perry
> > > > >> >> > > Shafran -
> > > > >> >> > > >> > NOAA
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Affiliate
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov>
wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > I just transferred
some model
> > > files
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> >> an
> > > > >> >> > ob
> > > > >> >> > > >> file
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> here
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > on
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Theia.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> All
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > these model files
verify at
> the
> > > ob
> > > > >> time
> > > > >> >> > here.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > Have
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> a
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > look:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
/scratch4/NCEPDEV/meso/save/
> > > > >> >> > > >> > Perry.Shafran/for_john
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Perry
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018
at 6:55
> > PM,
> > > > John
> > > > >> >> > Halley
> > > > >> >> > > >> > Gotway
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> via
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > RT
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > <
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu>
wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Hi Perry,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Can you please point
me to a
> > > model
> > > > >> >> output
> > > > >> >> > > file
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > containing
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > OZCON
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> fields? Presumably,
these
> are
> > > in
> > > > >> GRIB1
> > > > >> >> > or 2
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> format,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > and
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > hopefully,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> there's
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> some flag in the
header that
> > > will
> > > > >> >> enable
> > > > >> >> > us
> > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > distinguish
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > between
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> GRIB
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> records containing 1
and 8
> > hour
> > > > >> >> averages.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> As for the point
> > observations, I
> > > > >> >> suspect
> > > > >> >> > > that
> > > > >> >> > > >> > we'll
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > need
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> add
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> logic
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > to
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> PB2NC to distinguish
between
> > > the 1
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> >> 8
> > > > >> >> > > hour
> > > > >> >> > > >> > COPO
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > concentrations.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Perhaps
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> we could update PB2NC
to use
> > the
> > > > >> TPHR
> > > > >> >> > values
> > > > >> >> > > >> to
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > renamed
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > COPO
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> to
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> COPO_1
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > and
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> COPO_8?
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Are these COPO point
> > > observations
> > > > >> >> present
> > > > >> >> > in
> > > > >> >> > > >> NDAS
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> or
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > GDAS
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > PrepBUFR
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > files?
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Thanks,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> John
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018
at 1:40
> > PM,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > via
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> RT <
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu>
wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Tue Feb 20 13:40:01
2018:
> > > > Request
> > > > >> >> 84134
> > > > >> >> > > was
> > > > >> >> > > >> > acted
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > upon.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Transaction: Ticket
> created
> > by
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Queue:
met_help
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Subject:
verifying
> > ozone
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Owner:
Nobody
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Requestors:
> > > > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Status: new
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Ticket <URL:
> > > > >> >> > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Hi, everyone,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I am helping the
AQM group
> > > > verify
> > > > >> >> ozone
> > > > >> >> > > and
> > > > >> >> > > >> I
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> need
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > some
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> assistance
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > in
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> using
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > PB2NC (and then
later
> > > > point_stat,
> > > > >> but
> > > > >> >> > > let's
> > > > >> >> > > >> > start
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > with
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > PB2NC). I
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > need
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> to
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > be able to read in
two
> > > > quantities
> > > > >> >> from
> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> prepbufr
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > file
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > then
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> combine
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > that to be able to
compare
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > >> two
> > > > >> >> > > model
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> items.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the bufr file,
the
> > > variables
> > > > at
> > > > >> >> hand
> > > > >> >> > > are
> > > > >> >> > > >> > COPO
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > (the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > ozone
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> concentration),
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > and also TPHR.
TPHR is
> > either
> > > > -1
> > > > >> or
> > > > >> >> -8
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> depending on
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > whether
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> observed
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > ozone is a 1-hr or
8-hr
> > > average.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In essence, we have
two
> > > entities
> > > > >> here
> > > > >> >> > > >> depending
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> on
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> value of
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > TPHR:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > 1-hr average ozone
and the
> > > 8-hr
> > > > >> >> average
> > > > >> >> > > >> ozone.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> But
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > they
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> have
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > same
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > value.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the model we
also have
> > two
> > > > >> >> variables.
> > > > >> >> > > >> Both
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> are
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > called
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > OZCON,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> but
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > first one in the
file is a
> > > 1-hr
> > > > >> >> average
> > > > >> >> > > and
> > > > >> >> > > >> the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > second
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > one
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> is
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 8-hr
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > The trick here is
> verifying
> > > 1-hr
> > > > >> >> average
> > > > >> >> > > >> with
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> 1-hr
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > average,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> and
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> 8-hr
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average with 8-hr
average.
> > I
> > > > >> think
> > > > >> >> > there
> > > > >> >> > > >> is a
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> multiplication
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> factor
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > in
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > there somewhere, as
the
> obs
> > > are
> > > > in
> > > > >> >> units
> > > > >> >> > > of
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > mole/mole,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > while
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > model
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> is
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > in parts per
billion
> (ppb).
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I don't know if
you've
> > spoken
> > > > with
> > > > >> >> the
> > > > >> >> > AQM
> > > > >> >> > > >> team
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> on
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > how
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> exactly
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> to do
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> this,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > but I was hoping to
help
> > them
> > > > with
> > > > >> >> this.
> > > > >> >> > > If
> > > > >> >> > > >> > you
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> can
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > advise
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> on
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> how
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > to
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > do
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > this, that would be
great!
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Thanks!
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Perry
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: verifying ozone
From: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
Time: Wed Mar 28 08:00:40 2018
Hi, John,
I have a bevy of data for you on Theia. You can find it all here:
/scratch4/NCEPDEV/meso/noscrub/Perry.Shafran/for_john/aqm (for CMAQ
model
files)
/scratch4/NCEPDEV/meso/noscrub/Perry.Shafran/for_john/airnow (for
AIRNOW
files)
There are a bunch of files here. The awpozcon files are the ozone
grib
files, and the pm25 files are the PM grib files. Any file with the
letters
"bc" means that the file is a bias corrected file (which doesn't mean
a
whole lot to you but they are still grib files we need to verify).
Each directory also contains several max/avg files. What's important
to us
are the o3 max files and the pm25 max and 24-hr average files. (Only
use
the files with the number 148 on them - we don't use the files with
the
number 227 on them, 148 is the native grid.) Each of these files
contains
2 records, which mainly consist of a day 1 record and a day 2 record.
They
have unusual notations for the time averaging, but I believe they are
basically 4Z to 4Z maxima and averages. Use wgrib2 to take a look-
see.
I have three days worth of all these files. Only worry about 06Z and
12Z
cycles - the 00Z and 18Z cycles are not used.
In the airnow directory I have several days worth of observations.
The
files you REALLY have to worry about are the aqm.t12z.prepbufr.tm00
file
(for ozone), and the aqm.t12z.anowpm.pb.tm024 (for PM). This is the
only
thing that is different between ozone and PM - for ozone you need
today's
ozone bufr file but for PM you need *tomorrow's* PM bufr file - which
verifies today. If that makes sense at all. If it doesn't, just look
at
the time stamps for the file to be sure you've got the correct day's
worth
of files.
This seems like a giant mess, I know, but I am sure eventually we'll
all
figure it out.
Thanks!
Perry
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 5:41 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> Perry and Julie,
>
> I just created a met-7.1_beta1 release to enable Perry to do the
testing he
> needs.
>
> I posted the tarball to the MET website:
>
> www.dtcenter.org/met/users/downloads/MET_releases/met-7.
> 1_beta1.20180316.tar.gz
>
> Perry, I assume it'd be most convenient for you to have this
available on
> WCOSS for testing? If not, please let us know where.
>
> Julie, assuming Perry wants it on the dev side of WCOSS, can you
please
> install it in your personal area, and tell Perry how he can access
it?
>
> Here's the very short list of changes included in met-7.1_beta1
(taken from
> the top-level README file):
>
> Version 7.1 BETA 1 Release Notes:
> --------------------------------
>
> - Make logic for finding matching UGRD/VGRD verification tasks more
robust
> in
> Point-Stat and Grid-Stat.
> - Fix PB2NC's computation of valid time for AIRNOW observations.
> - Minor bugfix for Series-Analysis when computing min/max timing
info for
> series with some missing input files.
> - Enable vld_thresh = 0 in Ensemble-Stat and Series-Analysis.
> - Update pntnc2ascii.R Rscript to handle obs_var variable.
>
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 6:46 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> >
> > Hi, John,
> >
> > At this point my main concern is the ability to run MET and get
good MET
> > output on some of the air quality items. Then once that's done,
worry
> > later about METViewer concerns. I do think we'll want to
eventually
> > compare VSDB vs MET output using METViewer, but that seems to be a
down
> the
> > road issue (though not too far down the road, so if there is a
METViewer
> > update coming up, put this in it).
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Perry
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 5:31 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Perry,
> > >
> > > On Monday, we decided that I should do the first (and very
early) beta
> > > release of met-7.1 to get this feature to you for testing. But
this
> > > version really shouldn't be used for anything other than
testing.
> Since
> > > this is a beta version for 7.1, my inclination would be to
increment
> the
> > > version number of the output now... to 7.1. The only downside
is that
> it
> > > won't be possible to load 7.1 output in METViewer. The loader
will
> error
> > > out and say that it doesn't know anything about version 7.1.
> > >
> > > If you need to be able to load this output into METViewer, we
should
> keep
> > > the version number back at 7.0... but I'm really worried about
> > version-itis
> > > here. I don't want to create a confusing mess of output.
> > >
> > > Any thoughts?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > John
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:57 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT
<
> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
>
> > > >
> > > > Hi, John,
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure I caught whether you have something for me to
test or
> not.
> > > I
> > > > think you were asking how to deliver these updates for ozone
so I
> guess
> > > you
> > > > need to deliver first before I can test anything.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > Perry
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Perry Shafran - NOAA Affiliate
<
> > > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi, John,
> > > > >
> > > > > Super, thanks! Let me know if there are any aspects of it
that
> need
> > > > > clarification.
> > > > >
> > > > > Perry
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:48 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Perry,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Yes, I received it. Thanks for the info. I wrote up a
> development
> > > > ticket
> > > > >> in JiRA to handle this and Howard Soh is taking a look at
it.
> I'll
> > > let
> > > > >> you
> > > > >> know when we have an update for you.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > >> John
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:31 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via
RT <
> > > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Hi, John,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I was just wondering if you got this message regarding
the DHR
> in
> > > the
> > > > >> ozone
> > > > >> > airnow file. I hadn't received any acknowledgement of
it. I
> > think
> > > > >> that if
> > > > >> > we are going to read this data correctly for
verification, we'll
> > > have
> > > > >> to be
> > > > >> > aware of this and use the DHR to add DHR to the file's
timestamp
> > in
> > > > >> order
> > > > >> > to get the right ob at the right time.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Thanks!
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Perry
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Perry Shafran - NOAA
Affiliate
> <
> > > > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > Hi, John,
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > For ozone (and for PM likely as well), the DHR will
tell you
> the
> > > > time
> > > > >> of
> > > > >> > > the observation. The DHR ranges from -11 to 12 in each
file,
> so
> > > if
> > > > >> you
> > > > >> > > have an observation with DHR of -10, for example, that
> > > observations
> > > > is
> > > > >> > > valid at 02Z. I guess I should have done better to
note this
> to
> > > you
> > > > >> > > previously, but you will need this additional
information in
> > order
> > > > to
> > > > >> get
> > > > >> > > the valid time of the observation. My apologies for
not
> > realizing
> > > > >> this
> > > > >> > > sooner (like before 7.0 was released).
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > The 00Z valid time (as in your example), I just
realized, is a
> > > > special
> > > > >> > > case. Since the DHR ranges from -11 to 12, that means
that
> the
> > > > valid
> > > > >> > times
> > > > >> > > in the file range from 01Z to 00Z the next day. That's
the
> > reason
> > > > for
> > > > >> > this
> > > > >> > > - it is indeed the 2017080912 <(201)%20708-0912> file
but this
> > > > >> particular
> > > > >> > > valid time is 2017081000 <(201)%20708-1000> because DHR
is 12
> in
> > > > this
> > > > >> > > case. So that makes it extra special fun for verifying
for
> the
> > > 00Z
> > > > >> valid
> > > > >> > > time, since we will have to go to the previous day's
obs file
> to
> > > > >> verify
> > > > >> > > that. Every other hour of the day, you won't see this
> mismatch.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Perry
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:59 AM, John Halley Gotway via
RT <
> > > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> Perry,
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> Yes, I see that all the AWIP* GRIB2 files you sent me
are
> valid
> > > at
> > > > >> > >> 2017081000.
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> However, the point observations in the
prepda.2017081000 are
> > > valid
> > > > >> at
> > > > >> > >> 20170809_120000. Or at least that's what the output
of PB2NC
> > > tells
> > > > >> me!
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> The timestamps of the data contained in
prepda.2017081000 is
> > > > >> 12-hours
> > > > >> > >> earlier than the timestamp of that file indicates.
Here's a
> > log
> > > > >> message
> > > > >> > >> from PB2NC listing out the "center time" for that
file:
> > > > >> > >> DEBUG 1: Processing Bufr File: prepda.2017081000
> > > > >> > >> DEBUG 2: Bufr Time Center: 20170809_120000
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> Perhaps there's a problem in the naming convention for
that
> > > > "prepda"
> > > > >> > >> file... or perhaps there's a good reason for the 12-
hour
> > > offset...
> > > > or
> > > > >> > >> perhaps there's some problem in the MET code and we're
not
> > > reading
> > > > >> data
> > > > >> > >> from that file correctly?
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> Thanks,
> > > > >> > >> John
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:37 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov
via
> RT
> > <
> > > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > >
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > OK, thanks! So this is included in the latest MET
> release. I
> > > > think
> > > > >> > >> there
> > > > >> > >> > will definitely be other questions, if I want to be
able to
> > > > verify
> > > > >> > each
> > > > >> > >> > hourly forecast of ozone with the observation. The
DHR
> tells
> > > us
> > > > >> which
> > > > >> > >> hour
> > > > >> > >> > that we are looking for to verify.
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > Perry
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:25 AM, John Halley Gotway
via RT
> <
> > > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > Hi Perry,
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > We just posted the met-7.0 release yesterday.
Julie
> > > Prestopnik
> > > > >> is
> > > > >> > >> > actually
> > > > >> > >> > > out at NCEP today, and she'll be the one to
install it on
> > > > >> WCOSS. So
> > > > >> > >> I'll
> > > > >> > >> > > let her chime in to let us know when she's able to
do
> that.
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > Thanks,
> > > > >> > >> > > John
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:27 AM,
perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> via
> > > RT
> > > > <
> > > > >> > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > I am able to start working on this today. Is
this
> > > available
> > > > >> for
> > > > >> > >> > testing
> > > > >> > >> > > > now?
> > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > Also I'm not entirely sure what you mean in that
the
> obs
> > > and
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > >> model
> > > > >> > >> > > > don't match up well in time? In the example I
sent
> you,
> > > you
> > > > >> have
> > > > >> > a
> > > > >> > >> set
> > > > >> > >> > > of
> > > > >> > >> > > > observations and all the forecast files that
verify at
> > that
> > > > >> > >> particular
> > > > >> > >> > > > time. Both the model and observed bufr file
have
> > 1-hourly
> > > > >> fields
> > > > >> > >> > (hourly
> > > > >> > >> > > > fields of 1-hr and hourly fields of 8-hr ozone -
kind
> of
> > > hard
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> > >> > imagine
> > > > >> > >> > > > that, but they are just values). So we will
also need
> a
> > > way
> > > > to
> > > > >> > >> match
> > > > >> > >> > up
> > > > >> > >> > > > the observed field with the modeled field at the
> > > > corresponding
> > > > >> > time.
> > > > >> > >> > > (For
> > > > >> > >> > > > example, matching the 3-hr forecast from the 12Z
model
> > run
> > > > with
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > >> 15Z
> > > > >> > >> > > > observed field.)
> > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > I think this is best achieved with a different
> execution
> > of
> > > > >> > >> point_stat
> > > > >> > >> > > for
> > > > >> > >> > > > each individual hour, because that's how I do
gridtobs
> > > > anyway.
> > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > What are your thoughts on the above?
> > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
> > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > Perry
> > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:32 PM, John Halley
Gotway via
> > RT <
> > > > >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu
> > > > >> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > Hi Perry,
> > > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > Howard Soh updated the logic in the PB2NC to
handle
> > the 1
> > > > and
> > > > >> > >> 8-hour
> > > > >> > >> > > COPO
> > > > >> > >> > > > > observations in the way we discussed. I
wanted to
> let
> > > you
> > > > >> know
> > > > >> > >> that
> > > > >> > >> > I
> > > > >> > >> > > > > tested it this afternoon and got some good
results.
> > The
> > > > >> sample
> > > > >> > >> > > fcst/obs
> > > > >> > >> > > > > data you sent doesn't line up well in time, so
I just
> > > set a
> > > > >> very
> > > > >> > >> > large
> > > > >> > >> > > > > matching time window in Point-Stat.
> > > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > Here's the relevant pieces of the Point-Stat
config
> > file:
> > > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > fcst = {
> > > > >> > >> > > > > field = [
> > > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "OZCON"; level = "A01"; },
> > > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "OZCON"; level = "A08"; }
> > > > >> > >> > > > > ];
> > > > >> > >> > > > > }
> > > > >> > >> > > > > obs = {
> > > > >> > >> > > > > message_type = [ "AIRNOW" ];
> > > > >> > >> > > > > convert(x) = x*10^9;
> > > > >> > >> > > > > field = [
> > > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level = "A01"; },
> > > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level = "A08"; }
> > > > >> > >> > > > > ];
> > > > >> > >> > > > > }
> > > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > And I'm just *guessing* at that conversion
factor.
> The
> > > > >> > resulting
> > > > >> > >> > > numbers
> > > > >> > >> > > > > look about right, but its up to you to
confirm.
> Using
> > > the
> > > > >> > sample
> > > > >> > >> > data
> > > > >> > >> > > > you
> > > > >> > >> > > > > sent me, this results in a mean error value of
12.64
> > and
> > > > >> 15.48
> > > > >> > for
> > > > >> > >> > the
> > > > >> > >> > > 1
> > > > >> > >> > > > > and 8-hour accums, respectively. But the
fcst/obs
> data
> > > are
> > > > >> > >> actually
> > > > >> > >> > > > offset
> > > > >> > >> > > > > by 12 hours so these numbers don't mean much,
other
> > than
> > > > >> > >> > demonstrating
> > > > >> > >> > > > > there isn't a huge order of magnitude
difference.
> > > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >> > >> > > > > John
> > > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:06 PM, John Halley
Gotway <
> > > > >> > >> johnhg at ucar.edu
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > > Perry,
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > > I think I prefer option 2 as well. I'll ask
Howard
> > > Soh,
> > > > >> one
> > > > >> > of
> > > > >> > >> the
> > > > >> > >> > > > > > developers here, to add specific logic for
the
> AIRNOW
> > > > >> message
> > > > >> > >> type,
> > > > >> > >> > > > > where...
> > > > >> > >> > > > > > - level = absolute value of TPHR
> > > > >> > >> > > > > > - qc flag = QCIND
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > > John
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:00 PM,
> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > >> via
> > > > >> > RT
> > > > >> > >> <
> > > > >> > >> > > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> Hi, John,
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> What would be easier in comparing to the
model
> > output,
> > > > do
> > > > >> you
> > > > >> > >> > think?
> > > > >> > >> > > > I
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> think that having it as some sort of
"accumulation
> > > > >> variable"
> > > > >> > >> (the
> > > > >> > >> > > 2nd
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> option) would work.
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> In the model, though, they are not listed
as
> either
> > 1
> > > or
> > > > >> 8 hr
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> accumulations/averages. They are listed as
> either,
> > > for
> > > > >> > example
> > > > >> > >> > for
> > > > >> > >> > > > the
> > > > >> > >> > > > > 24
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> hr forecast, either "23-24 hr ave fcst" or
"16-24
> hr
> > > ave
> > > > >> > fcst".
> > > > >> > >> > > Would
> > > > >> > >> > > > > be
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> easier if it said "1 hr ave fcst" or "8 hr
ave
> > fcst",
> > > > but
> > > > >> > >> again,
> > > > >> > >> > > > that's
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> not
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> what we got. So I'm guessing that might
make it a
> > > > little
> > > > >> > more
> > > > >> > >> > > > > challenging
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> for the model to script up?
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> Perry
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:50 PM, John
Halley
> Gotway
> > > via
> > > > >> RT <
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Perry,
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > I wanted to check how point observations
of
> precip
> > > are
> > > > >> > >> stored in
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> PrepBUFR
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > so I ran PB2NC on an old NDAS file using
the
> > -index
> > > > >> option.
> > > > >> > >> > > Here's
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> what I
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > found:
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP06: TOTAL PRECIPITATION
PAST 6
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > HOURS types:
ADPSFC
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP24: TOTAL PRECIPITATION
PAST
> 24
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > HOURS types:
ADPSFC
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > So basically, the accumulation interval
exists
> in
> > > the
> > > > >> > >> > observation
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> variable
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > name. Following that paradigm, if the
AIRNOW
> > > > >> observations
> > > > >> > >> were
> > > > >> > >> > > > stored
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > using COPO01 and COPO08, then MET would
already
> be
> > > > able
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> > >> > handle
> > > > >> > >> > > > them
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > already. But I suppose we're likely
stuck with
> > what
> > > > >> we've
> > > > >> > >> got.
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > I can see 2 ways we could handle this for
> > processing
> > > > >> AIRNOW
> > > > >> > >> > > message
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > types...
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Option 1: Follow the precip example and
modify
> the
> > > > >> > >> observation
> > > > >> > >> > > > > variable
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > names by appending the TPHR value.
Instead of
> > COPO,
> > > > >> we'd
> > > > >> > >> have
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> observations
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > named COPO01 and COPO08. And if we ever
see
> TPHR
> > =
> > > > -24,
> > > > >> > >> that'd
> > > > >> > >> > > > > produce
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> a
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > COPO24 variable name.
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Option 2: We could keep the COPO variable
name
> > > > >> unchanged,
> > > > >> > and
> > > > >> > >> > > > instead
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> set
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the "level" value for these observations
to
> > indicate
> > > > the
> > > > >> > >> > > > accumulation
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > interval. If you look at the ascii2nc
usage
> > > > statement,
> > > > >> > >> you'll
> > > > >> > >> > see
> > > > >> > >> > > > the
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > following:
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > "Level" is the pressure level (hPa) or
> > > accumulation
> > > > >> > >> interval
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> (HH[MMSS]).
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > So we could use the value of TPHR to
define the
> > > level
> > > > >> as an
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> "accumulation"
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > interval.
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Either option could be made to work in
MET.
> Does
> > > one
> > > > >> make
> > > > >> > >> more
> > > > >> > >> > > > sense
> > > > >> > >> > > > > to
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > you than the other?
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > While we're doing this, I assume we
should also
> > > using
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > >> QCIND
> > > > >> > >> > > > value
> > > > >> > >> > > > > to
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > populate the obs_qty (i.e. quality
control)
> > setting?
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > John
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:34 PM, John
Halley
> > Gotway
> > > <
> > > > >> > >> > > > johnhg at ucar.edu>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Perry,
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Until users dive into the details, we
won't
> know
> > > > about
> > > > >> > >> these
> > > > >> > >> > > sorts
> > > > >> > >> > > > > of
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> -1
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > vs -8 issues. But once we identify the
> > > > requirements,
> > > > >> we
> > > > >> > >> can
> > > > >> > >> > > > update
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > software to handle them.
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > So please keep the feedback coming.
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks,
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > John
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:31 PM,
> > > > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > >> > >> via
> > > > >> > >> > RT
> > > > >> > >> > > <
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > >> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Hi, John,
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> OK, thanks! I thought the latest
version of
> > MET
> > > > >> that we
> > > > >> > >> were
> > > > >> > >> > > > using
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> was
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> configured for the air quality
applications?
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Perry
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:26 PM, John
Halley
> > > Gotway
> > > > >> via
> > > > >> > >> RT <
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Perry,
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > I just grabbed them and ran the
forecast
> data
> > > > >> through
> > > > >> > >> the
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> plot_data_plane
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > utility. Looks like specifying the
level
> as
> > an
> > > > >> > >> > accumulation
> > > > >> > >> > > > type
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> does
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> the
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > trick:
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-
6.1/bin/plot_data_plane
> > > > >> AWIP3D18.tm00
> > > > >> > >> > > > > OZCON_1hr.ps
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A1";'
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-
6.1/bin/plot_data_plane
> > > > >> AWIP3D18.tm00
> > > > >> > >> > > > > OZCON_8hr.ps
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON"; level="A8";'
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > The resulting images are attached.
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Next, I ran pb2nc using the -index
option
> to
> > > see
> > > > a
> > > > >> > >> > > description
> > > > >> > >> > > > of
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > prepda contents:
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/pb2nc
> > prepda.2017081000
> > > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > >> > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > >> > >> > > > <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > prepda.2017081000.nc
> > > > /usr/local/met-6.1/share/met/
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > config/PB2NCConfig_default
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > -index -log pb2nc_index.log
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Header variables:
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SID: STATION
> IDENTIFICATION
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: XOB: LONGITUDE
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: YOB: LATITUDE
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: DHR: OBSERVATION
TIME
> MINUS
> > > > CYCLE
> > > > >> > TIME
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ELV:
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYP: PREPBUFR
REPORT TYPE
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: T29: DATA DUMP
REPORT TYPE
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ITP:
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Observation variables:
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: COPO: CONCENTRATION
OF
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > POLLUTANT
> > types:
> > > > >> AIRNOW
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYPO: TYPE OF
POLLUTANT
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: CAT: PREPBUFR DATA
LEVEL
> > > > CATEGORY
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: PROCN: PROCESS NUMBER
FOR
> THIS
> > > MPI
> > > > >> RUN
> > > > >> > >> > > (OBTAINED
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> FROM
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > SCRIPT)
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SQN: REPORT
SEQUENCE
> NUMBER
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: QCIND: QUALITY
CONTROL
> > > INDICATION
> > > > OF
> > > > >> > >> > FOLLOWING
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DATA types: AIRNOW
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TSIG: TIME
SIGNIFICANCE
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: RPT: REPORTED
OBSERVATION
> > TIME
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TPHR: TIME PERIOD OR
> > > DISPLACEMENT
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > I see the COPO and TPHR observations
> listed.
> > > > We'll
> > > > >> > >> need to
> > > > >> > >> > > > > update
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > PB2NC code to handle the logic
you've
> > > described.
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > One option for specifying the 1 vs 8
hour
> > > > >> difference
> > > > >> > >> would
> > > > >> > >> > be
> > > > >> > >> > > > to
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> mimic
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> how
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > different precip accumulation
intervals are
> > > > stored
> > > > >> for
> > > > >> > >> > > gauges.
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> I'll
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> look
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > more into how we might do that.
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Thanks,
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > John
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:17 PM,
> > > > >> > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > >> > >> > via
> > > > >> > >> > > > RT
> > > > >> > >> > > > > <
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > >> > >> > > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Hi, John,
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > I was just wondering if you have
found
> and
> > > > >> received
> > > > >> > >> these
> > > > >> > >> > > > > files.
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Thanks!
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Perry
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:30 AM,
Perry
> > > > Shafran -
> > > > >> > NOAA
> > > > >> > >> > > > > Affiliate
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> <
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > I just transferred some model
files and
> > an
> > > ob
> > > > >> file
> > > > >> > >> here
> > > > >> > >> > > on
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> Theia.
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> All
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > these model files verify at the
ob time
> > > here.
> > > > >> > Have
> > > > >> > >> a
> > > > >> > >> > > look:
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > /scratch4/NCEPDEV/meso/save/
> > > > >> > Perry.Shafran/for_john
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Perry
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 6:55 PM,
John
> > > Halley
> > > > >> > Gotway
> > > > >> > >> via
> > > > >> > >> > > RT
> > > > >> > >> > > > <
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Hi Perry,
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Can you please point me to a
model
> > output
> > > > file
> > > > >> > >> > > containing
> > > > >> > >> > > > > the
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > OZCON
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> fields? Presumably, these are
in
> GRIB1
> > > or 2
> > > > >> > >> format,
> > > > >> > >> > and
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > hopefully,
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> there's
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> some flag in the header that
will
> enable
> > > us
> > > > to
> > > > >> > >> > > distinguish
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > between
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> the
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> GRIB
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> records containing 1 and 8 hour
> > averages.
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> As for the point observations,
I
> suspect
> > > > that
> > > > >> > we'll
> > > > >> > >> > need
> > > > >> > >> > > > to
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> add
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> logic
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > to
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> PB2NC to distinguish between
the 1
> and 8
> > > > hour
> > > > >> > COPO
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > concentrations.
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Perhaps
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> we could update PB2NC to use
the TPHR
> > > values
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> > >> > renamed
> > > > >> > >> > > > COPO
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> to
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> COPO_1
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > and
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> COPO_8?
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Are these COPO point
observations
> > present
> > > in
> > > > >> NDAS
> > > > >> > >> or
> > > > >> > >> > > GDAS
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > PrepBUFR
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > files?
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Thanks,
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> John
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:40
PM,
> > > > >> > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > >> > >> > > > via
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> RT <
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Tue Feb 20 13:40:01 2018:
Request
> > 84134
> > > > was
> > > > >> > acted
> > > > >> > >> > > upon.
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Transaction: Ticket created
by
> > > > >> > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Queue: met_help
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Subject: verifying ozone
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Owner: Nobody
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Requestors:
> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Status: new
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Ticket <URL:
> > > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Hi, everyone,
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I am helping the AQM group
verify
> > ozone
> > > > and
> > > > >> I
> > > > >> > >> need
> > > > >> > >> > > some
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> assistance
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > in
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> using
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > PB2NC (and then later
point_stat,
> but
> > > > let's
> > > > >> > start
> > > > >> > >> > with
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > PB2NC). I
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > need
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> to
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > be able to read in two
quantities
> from
> > > the
> > > > >> > >> prepbufr
> > > > >> > >> > > file
> > > > >> > >> > > > > and
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > then
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> combine
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > that to be able to compare to
the
> two
> > > > model
> > > > >> > >> items.
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the bufr file, the
variables at
> > hand
> > > > are
> > > > >> > COPO
> > > > >> > >> > (the
> > > > >> > >> > > > > ozone
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> concentration),
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > and also TPHR. TPHR is
either -1 or
> > -8
> > > > >> > >> depending on
> > > > >> > >> > > > > whether
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> observed
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > ozone is a 1-hr or 8-hr
average.
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In essence, we have two
entities
> here
> > > > >> depending
> > > > >> > >> on
> > > > >> > >> > the
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> value of
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > TPHR:
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> the
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > 1-hr average ozone and the 8-
hr
> > average
> > > > >> ozone.
> > > > >> > >> But
> > > > >> > >> > > they
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> have
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > same
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > value.
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the model we also have two
> > variables.
> > > > >> Both
> > > > >> > >> are
> > > > >> > >> > > > called
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > OZCON,
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> but
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > the
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > first one in the file is a 1-
hr
> > average
> > > > and
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > >> > second
> > > > >> > >> > > > one
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> is
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 8-hr
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average.
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > The trick here is verifying
1-hr
> > average
> > > > >> with
> > > > >> > >> 1-hr
> > > > >> > >> > > > > average,
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> and
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> 8-hr
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average with 8-hr average. I
think
> > > there
> > > > >> is a
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> multiplication
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> factor
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > in
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > there somewhere, as the obs
are in
> > units
> > > > of
> > > > >> > >> > mole/mole,
> > > > >> > >> > > > > while
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > model
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> is
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > in parts per billion (ppb).
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I don't know if you've spoken
with
> the
> > > AQM
> > > > >> team
> > > > >> > >> on
> > > > >> > >> > how
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> exactly
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> to do
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> this,
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > but I was hoping to help them
with
> > this.
> > > > If
> > > > >> > you
> > > > >> > >> can
> > > > >> > >> > > > > advise
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> on
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> how
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > to
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > do
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > this, that would be great!
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Thanks!
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Perry
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: verifying ozone
From: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
Time: Wed Mar 28 12:22:43 2018
Hi, Julie,
Just an FYI - I just ran the 7.0 version of MET and it also failed
with the
same error, interestingly. But others did not report a problem like
this
in 7.0? Weird.
Perry
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Julie Prestopnik via RT
<met_help at ucar.edu>
wrote:
> Hi Perry.
>
> I can reproduce the problem on both tide and our local machine. It
looks
> like an issue with the logic in when writing to the NetCDF output
file.
> One of our software developers in working on the problem. We will
let you
> know when it is resolved.
>
> I will be out of the office this coming Monday - Wednesday, just
FYI, so I
> may not be able to recompile on tide until next week.
>
> Regarding your question about the 7.1 beta, I think you are probably
the
> only one who knows about the 7.1 beta, but I don't think it would be
a
> problem if you mentioned it to your colleagues.
>
> Julie
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:20 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> >
> > Hi, Julie,
> >
> > Yikes, it's all part a script, and it's not quite the usage. But
here
> are
> > the commands used from the output:
> >
> > pb2nc prepda.2018032200 prepda.nc.2018032200
> > /meso/save/Perry.Shafran/verif/nwtest/parm/PB2NCConfig -v
> > 3
> >
> > point_stat AWIP3D00.tm00 prepda.nc.2018032200
> > /meso/save/Perry.Shafran/verif/nwtest/parm/PointStatConfig_cv -v 3
> >
> > You can run these if you go to the directory
> > /stmpp2/Perry.Shafran/tmpnwtest/verf_gridtobs_nam_00/00.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > BTW - am I the only one who knows about the 7.1 beta? In case I'm
not
> > supposed to bring it up among my colleagues?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Perry
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Julie Prestopnik via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Perry. My apologies for the delay in responding. I was out
of the
> > > office.
> > > I have copied over your script and would like to run it to see
if I can
> > > reproduce the error. I see the usage is:
> > >
> > > verf_gridtobs.sh $model $vday $vcyc
> > >
> > > Can you please send me the exact command line you are running so
that I
> > can
> > > try to reproduce the error? Or, to simply things you could send
me a
> > single
> > > command line for pb2nc and point_stat so that I can run that.
The
> latter
> > > option would be preferable in case my environment isn't set up
as yours
> > is
> > > with all necessary items.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > Julie
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 2:28 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
>
> > > >
> > > > Hi there,
> > > >
> > > > I am trying out the new 7.1 beta, and I got this error in both
pb2nc
> > and
> > > > point_stat (except for point_stat replace the 146 in the error
with
> > 80):
> > > >
> > > > terminate called after throwing an instance of
> > > > 'netCDF::exceptions::NcBadId'
> > > > what(): NetCDF: Not a valid ID
> > > > file: ncVar.cpp line:146
> > > > /meso/save/Perry.Shafran/verif/nwtest/ush/verf_
> gridtobs_fits.sh[143]:
> > .:
> > > > line 217:
> > > > 41145: Abort(coredump)
> > > >
> > > > Any idea what the issue is here?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > Perry
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Perry Shafran - NOAA
Affiliate <
> > > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi, Julie,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > >
> > > > > Perry
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 2:50 PM, Julie Prestopnik via RT <
> > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hi Perry.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> met-7.1_beta1 is now installed on tide. You can access it
by
> > running
> > > > the
> > > > >> following:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> module use /global/noscrub/Julie.Prestopnik/modulefiles
> > > > >> module load met/7.1_beta1
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Please let me know if you have any questions or encounter
any
> > > problems.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > >> Julie
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 3:41 PM, John Halley Gotway <
> > johnhg at ucar.edu>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Perry and Julie,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I just created a met-7.1_beta1 release to enable Perry to
do the
> > > > testing
> > > > >> > he needs.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I posted the tarball to the MET website:
> > > > >> > www.dtcenter.org/met/users/downloads/MET_releases/met-
7.
> > > > >> > 1_beta1.20180316.tar.gz
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Perry, I assume it'd be most convenient for you to have
this
> > > available
> > > > >> on
> > > > >> > WCOSS for testing? If not, please let us know where.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Julie, assuming Perry wants it on the dev side of WCOSS,
can you
> > > > please
> > > > >> > install it in your personal area, and tell Perry how he
can
> access
> > > it?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Here's the very short list of changes included in met-
7.1_beta1
> > > (taken
> > > > >> > from the top-level README file):
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Version 7.1 BETA 1 Release Notes:
> > > > >> > --------------------------------
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > - Make logic for finding matching UGRD/VGRD verification
tasks
> > more
> > > > >> robust
> > > > >> > in
> > > > >> > Point-Stat and Grid-Stat.
> > > > >> > - Fix PB2NC's computation of valid time for AIRNOW
observations.
> > > > >> > - Minor bugfix for Series-Analysis when computing min/max
timing
> > > info
> > > > >> for
> > > > >> > series with some missing input files.
> > > > >> > - Enable vld_thresh = 0 in Ensemble-Stat and Series-
Analysis.
> > > > >> > - Update pntnc2ascii.R Rscript to handle obs_var
variable.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > >> > John
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 6:46 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov
via RT
> <
> > > > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> >
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Hi, John,
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> At this point my main concern is the ability to run MET
and get
> > > good
> > > > >> MET
> > > > >> >> output on some of the air quality items. Then once
that's
> done,
> > > > worry
> > > > >> >> later about METViewer concerns. I do think we'll want
to
> > > eventually
> > > > >> >> compare VSDB vs MET output using METViewer, but that
seems to
> be
> > a
> > > > down
> > > > >> >> the
> > > > >> >> road issue (though not too far down the road, so if
there is a
> > > > >> METViewer
> > > > >> >> update coming up, put this in it).
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Thanks!
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Perry
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 5:31 PM, John Halley Gotway via
RT <
> > > > >> >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> > Perry,
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > On Monday, we decided that I should do the first (and
very
> > early)
> > > > >> beta
> > > > >> >> > release of met-7.1 to get this feature to you for
testing.
> But
> > > > this
> > > > >> >> > version really shouldn't be used for anything other
than
> > testing.
> > > > >> Since
> > > > >> >> > this is a beta version for 7.1, my inclination would
be to
> > > > increment
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> >> > version number of the output now... to 7.1. The only
> downside
> > is
> > > > >> that
> > > > >> >> it
> > > > >> >> > won't be possible to load 7.1 output in METViewer.
The
> loader
> > > will
> > > > >> >> error
> > > > >> >> > out and say that it doesn't know anything about
version 7.1.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > If you need to be able to load this output into
METViewer, we
> > > > should
> > > > >> >> keep
> > > > >> >> > the version number back at 7.0... but I'm really
worried
> about
> > > > >> >> version-itis
> > > > >> >> > here. I don't want to create a confusing mess of
output.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > Any thoughts?
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > Thanks,
> > > > >> >> > John
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:57 AM,
perry.shafran at noaa.gov via
> > RT
> > > <
> > > > >> >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Tic
> > ket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > >
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > Hi, John,
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > I'm not sure I caught whether you have something for
me to
> > test
> > > > or
> > > > >> >> not.
> > > > >> >> > I
> > > > >> >> > > think you were asking how to deliver these updates
for
> ozone
> > > so I
> > > > >> >> guess
> > > > >> >> > you
> > > > >> >> > > need to deliver first before I can test anything.
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > Thanks!
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > Perry
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Perry Shafran - NOAA
> > Affiliate
> > > <
> > > > >> >> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > > Hi, John,
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > Super, thanks! Let me know if there are any
aspects of
> it
> > > that
> > > > >> need
> > > > >> >> > > > clarification.
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > Perry
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:48 PM, John Halley Gotway
via
> RT <
> > > > >> >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> Perry,
> > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> Yes, I received it. Thanks for the info. I
wrote up a
> > > > >> development
> > > > >> >> > > ticket
> > > > >> >> > > >> in JiRA to handle this and Howard Soh is taking a
look
> at
> > > it.
> > > > >> I'll
> > > > >> >> > let
> > > > >> >> > > >> you
> > > > >> >> > > >> know when we have an update for you.
> > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> Thanks,
> > > > >> >> > > >> John
> > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:31 PM,
perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > via
> > > > RT <
> > > > >> >> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > Hi, John,
> > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > I was just wondering if you got this message
regarding
> > the
> > > > >> DHR in
> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > >> >> > > >> ozone
> > > > >> >> > > >> > airnow file. I hadn't received any
acknowledgement of
> > it.
> > > > I
> > > > >> >> think
> > > > >> >> > > >> that if
> > > > >> >> > > >> > we are going to read this data correctly for
> > verification,
> > > > >> we'll
> > > > >> >> > have
> > > > >> >> > > >> to be
> > > > >> >> > > >> > aware of this and use the DHR to add DHR to the
file's
> > > > >> timestamp
> > > > >> >> in
> > > > >> >> > > >> order
> > > > >> >> > > >> > to get the right ob at the right time.
> > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > Thanks!
> > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > Perry
> > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Perry Shafran
- NOAA
> > > > >> Affiliate <
> > > > >> >> > > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > > Hi, John,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > > For ozone (and for PM likely as well), the
DHR will
> > tell
> > > > you
> > > > >> >> the
> > > > >> >> > > time
> > > > >> >> > > >> of
> > > > >> >> > > >> > > the observation. The DHR ranges from -11 to
12 in
> > each
> > > > >> file,
> > > > >> >> so
> > > > >> >> > if
> > > > >> >> > > >> you
> > > > >> >> > > >> > > have an observation with DHR of -10, for
example,
> that
> > > > >> >> > observations
> > > > >> >> > > is
> > > > >> >> > > >> > > valid at 02Z. I guess I should have done
better to
> > note
> > > > >> this
> > > > >> >> to
> > > > >> >> > you
> > > > >> >> > > >> > > previously, but you will need this additional
> > > information
> > > > in
> > > > >> >> order
> > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > >> >> > > >> get
> > > > >> >> > > >> > > the valid time of the observation. My
apologies for
> > not
> > > > >> >> realizing
> > > > >> >> > > >> this
> > > > >> >> > > >> > > sooner (like before 7.0 was released).
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > > The 00Z valid time (as in your example), I
just
> > > realized,
> > > > >> is a
> > > > >> >> > > special
> > > > >> >> > > >> > > case. Since the DHR ranges from -11 to 12,
that
> means
> > > > that
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> >> > > valid
> > > > >> >> > > >> > times
> > > > >> >> > > >> > > in the file range from 01Z to 00Z the next
day.
> > That's
> > > > the
> > > > >> >> reason
> > > > >> >> > > for
> > > > >> >> > > >> > this
> > > > >> >> > > >> > > - it is indeed the 2017080912 <(201)%20708-
0912>
> > <(201)%20708-0912>
> > > > >> <(201)%20708-0912>
> > > > >> >> <(201)%20708-0912> file but this
> > > > >> >> > > >> particular
> > > > >> >> > > >> > > valid time is 2017081000 <(201)%20708-1000>
> > <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > >> >> <(201)%20708-1000> because DHR is 12 in
> > > > >> >> > > this
> > > > >> >> > > >> > > case. So that makes it extra special fun for
> > verifying
> > > > for
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> >> > 00Z
> > > > >> >> > > >> valid
> > > > >> >> > > >> > > time, since we will have to go to the
previous day's
> > obs
> > > > >> file
> > > > >> >> to
> > > > >> >> > > >> verify
> > > > >> >> > > >> > > that. Every other hour of the day, you won't
see
> this
> > > > >> >> mismatch.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > > Perry
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:59 AM, John Halley
Gotway
> > via
> > > > RT <
> > > > >> >> > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> Perry,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> Yes, I see that all the AWIP* GRIB2 files
you sent
> me
> > > are
> > > > >> >> valid
> > > > >> >> > at
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> 2017081000.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> However, the point observations in the
prepda.
> > > 2017081000
> > > > >> are
> > > > >> >> > valid
> > > > >> >> > > >> at
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> 20170809_120000. Or at least that's what
the
> output
> > of
> > > > >> PB2NC
> > > > >> >> > tells
> > > > >> >> > > >> me!
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> The timestamps of the data contained in
prepda.
> > > > 2017081000
> > > > >> is
> > > > >> >> > > >> 12-hours
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> earlier than the timestamp of that file
indicates.
> > > > Here's
> > > > >> a
> > > > >> >> log
> > > > >> >> > > >> message
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> from PB2NC listing out the "center time" for
that
> > file:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> DEBUG 1: Processing Bufr File: prepda.
> 2017081000
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> DEBUG 2: Bufr Time Center:
20170809_120000
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> Perhaps there's a problem in the naming
convention
> > for
> > > > that
> > > > >> >> > > "prepda"
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> file... or perhaps there's a good reason for
the
> > > 12-hour
> > > > >> >> > offset...
> > > > >> >> > > or
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> perhaps there's some problem in the MET code
and
> > we're
> > > > not
> > > > >> >> > reading
> > > > >> >> > > >> data
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> from that file correctly?
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> Thanks,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> John
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:37 AM,
> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > via
> > > > >> >> RT <
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Tic
> > > > >> >> ket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > OK, thanks! So this is included in the
latest
> MET
> > > > >> release.
> > > > >> >> I
> > > > >> >> > > think
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> there
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > will definitely be other questions, if I
want to
> be
> > > > able
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> >> > > verify
> > > > >> >> > > >> > each
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > hourly forecast of ozone with the
observation.
> The
> > > DHR
> > > > >> >> tells
> > > > >> >> > us
> > > > >> >> > > >> which
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> hour
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > that we are looking for to verify.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > Perry
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:25 AM, John
Halley
> Gotway
> > > via
> > > > >> RT <
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > Hi Perry,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > We just posted the met-7.0 release
yesterday.
> > > Julie
> > > > >> >> > Prestopnik
> > > > >> >> > > >> is
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > actually
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > out at NCEP today, and she'll be the one
to
> > install
> > > > it
> > > > >> on
> > > > >> >> > > >> WCOSS. So
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> I'll
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > let her chime in to let us know when
she's able
> > to
> > > do
> > > > >> >> that.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > Thanks,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > John
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:27 AM,
> > > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > >> >> via
> > > > >> >> > RT
> > > > >> >> > > <
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > >> >> > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > I am able to start working on this
today. Is
> > > this
> > > > >> >> > available
> > > > >> >> > > >> for
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > testing
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > now?
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Also I'm not entirely sure what you
mean in
> > that
> > > > the
> > > > >> obs
> > > > >> >> > and
> > > > >> >> > > >> the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> model
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > don't match up well in time? In the
example
> I
> > > sent
> > > > >> you,
> > > > >> >> > you
> > > > >> >> > > >> have
> > > > >> >> > > >> > a
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> set
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > of
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > observations and all the forecast
files that
> > > verify
> > > > >> at
> > > > >> >> that
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> particular
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > time. Both the model and observed
bufr file
> > have
> > > > >> >> 1-hourly
> > > > >> >> > > >> fields
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > (hourly
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > fields of 1-hr and hourly fields of 8-
hr
> ozone
> > -
> > > > >> kind of
> > > > >> >> > hard
> > > > >> >> > > >> to
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > imagine
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > that, but they are just values). So
we will
> > also
> > > > >> need a
> > > > >> >> > way
> > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> match
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > up
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > the observed field with the modeled
field at
> > the
> > > > >> >> > > corresponding
> > > > >> >> > > >> > time.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > (For
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > example, matching the 3-hr forecast
from the
> > 12Z
> > > > >> model
> > > > >> >> run
> > > > >> >> > > with
> > > > >> >> > > >> > the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> 15Z
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > observed field.)
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > I think this is best achieved with a
> different
> > > > >> >> execution of
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> point_stat
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > for
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > each individual hour, because that's
how I do
> > > > >> gridtobs
> > > > >> >> > > anyway.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > What are your thoughts on the above?
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Perry
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:32 PM, John
Halley
> > > Gotway
> > > > >> via
> > > > >> >> RT <
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Hi Perry,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Howard Soh updated the logic in the
PB2NC
> to
> > > > handle
> > > > >> >> the 1
> > > > >> >> > > and
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> 8-hour
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > COPO
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > observations in the way we
discussed. I
> > wanted
> > > > to
> > > > >> let
> > > > >> >> > you
> > > > >> >> > > >> know
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> that
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > I
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > tested it this afternoon and got
some good
> > > > results.
> > > > >> >> The
> > > > >> >> > > >> sample
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > fcst/obs
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > data you sent doesn't line up well
in time,
> > so
> > > I
> > > > >> just
> > > > >> >> > set a
> > > > >> >> > > >> very
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > large
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > matching time window in Point-Stat.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Here's the relevant pieces of the
> Point-Stat
> > > > config
> > > > >> >> file:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > fcst = {
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > field = [
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "OZCON"; level =
"A01"; },
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "OZCON"; level =
"A08"; }
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > ];
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > }
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > obs = {
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > message_type = [ "AIRNOW" ];
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > convert(x) = x*10^9;
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > field = [
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level =
"A01"; },
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level =
"A08"; }
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > ];
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > }
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > And I'm just *guessing* at that
conversion
> > > > factor.
> > > > >> >> The
> > > > >> >> > > >> > resulting
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > numbers
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > look about right, but its up to you
to
> > confirm.
> > > > >> Using
> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > sample
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > data
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > you
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > sent me, this results in a mean
error value
> > of
> > > > >> 12.64
> > > > >> >> and
> > > > >> >> > > >> 15.48
> > > > >> >> > > >> > for
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > 1
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > and 8-hour accums, respectively.
But the
> > > > fcst/obs
> > > > >> >> data
> > > > >> >> > are
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> actually
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > offset
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > by 12 hours so these numbers don't
mean
> much,
> > > > other
> > > > >> >> than
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > demonstrating
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > there isn't a huge order of
magnitude
> > > difference.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > John
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:06 PM,
John
> Halley
> > > > >> Gotway <
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> johnhg at ucar.edu
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > Perry,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > I think I prefer option 2 as well.
I'll
> > ask
> > > > >> Howard
> > > > >> >> > Soh,
> > > > >> >> > > >> one
> > > > >> >> > > >> > of
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > developers here, to add specific
logic
> for
> > > the
> > > > >> >> AIRNOW
> > > > >> >> > > >> message
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> type,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > where...
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > - level = absolute value of
TPHR
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > - qc flag = QCIND
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > John
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:00 PM,
> > > > >> >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > >> >> > > >> via
> > > > >> >> > > >> > RT
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> <
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > >> >> > > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Hi, John,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> What would be easier in comparing
to the
> > > model
> > > > >> >> output,
> > > > >> >> > > do
> > > > >> >> > > >> you
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > think?
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > I
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> think that having it as some sort
of
> > > > >> "accumulation
> > > > >> >> > > >> variable"
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> (the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > 2nd
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> option) would work.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> In the model, though, they are
not
> listed
> > as
> > > > >> >> either 1
> > > > >> >> > or
> > > > >> >> > > >> 8 hr
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> accumulations/averages. They are
listed
> > as
> > > > >> either,
> > > > >> >> > for
> > > > >> >> > > >> > example
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > for
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > 24
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> hr forecast, either "23-24 hr ave
fcst"
> or
> > > > >> "16-24
> > > > >> >> hr
> > > > >> >> > ave
> > > > >> >> > > >> > fcst".
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > Would
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > be
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> easier if it said "1 hr ave fcst"
or "8
> hr
> > > ave
> > > > >> >> fcst",
> > > > >> >> > > but
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> again,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > that's
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> not
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> what we got. So I'm guessing
that might
> > > make
> > > > >> it a
> > > > >> >> > > little
> > > > >> >> > > >> > more
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > challenging
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> for the model to script up?
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Perry
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:50 PM,
John
> > Halley
> > > > >> Gotway
> > > > >> >> > via
> > > > >> >> > > >> RT <
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Perry,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > I wanted to check how point
> observations
> > > of
> > > > >> >> precip
> > > > >> >> > are
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> stored in
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> PrepBUFR
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > so I ran PB2NC on an old NDAS
file
> using
> > > the
> > > > >> >> -index
> > > > >> >> > > >> option.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > Here's
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> what I
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > found:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP06: TOTAL
> > PRECIPITATION
> > > > >> PAST 6
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > HOURS
types:
> > > ADPSFC
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP24: TOTAL
> > PRECIPITATION
> > > > >> PAST 24
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > HOURS
types:
> > > ADPSFC
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > So basically, the accumulation
> interval
> > > > >> exists in
> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > observation
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> variable
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > name. Following that paradigm,
if the
> > > > AIRNOW
> > > > >> >> > > >> observations
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> were
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > stored
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > using COPO01 and COPO08, then
MET
> would
> > > > >> already
> > > > >> >> be
> > > > >> >> > > able
> > > > >> >> > > >> to
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > handle
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > them
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > already. But I suppose we're
likely
> > stuck
> > > > >> with
> > > > >> >> what
> > > > >> >> > > >> we've
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> got.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > I can see 2 ways we could
handle this
> > for
> > > > >> >> processing
> > > > >> >> > > >> AIRNOW
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > message
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > types...
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Option 1: Follow the precip
example
> and
> > > > modify
> > > > >> >> the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> observation
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > variable
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > names by appending the TPHR
value.
> > > Instead
> > > > of
> > > > >> >> COPO,
> > > > >> >> > > >> we'd
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> have
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> observations
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > named COPO01 and COPO08. And
if we
> ever
> > > see
> > > > >> >> TPHR =
> > > > >> >> > > -24,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> that'd
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > produce
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> a
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > COPO24 variable name.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Option 2: We could keep the
COPO
> > variable
> > > > name
> > > > >> >> > > >> unchanged,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > and
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > instead
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> set
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the "level" value for these
> observations
> > > to
> > > > >> >> indicate
> > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > accumulation
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > interval. If you look at the
ascii2nc
> > > usage
> > > > >> >> > > statement,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> you'll
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > see
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > following:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > "Level" is the pressure
level (hPa)
> > or
> > > > >> >> > accumulation
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> interval
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> (HH[MMSS]).
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > So we could use the value of
TPHR to
> > > define
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> >> > level
> > > > >> >> > > >> as an
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> "accumulation"
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > interval.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Either option could be made to
work in
> > > MET.
> > > > >> Does
> > > > >> >> > one
> > > > >> >> > > >> make
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> more
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > sense
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > you than the other?
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > While we're doing this, I
assume we
> > should
> > > > >> also
> > > > >> >> > using
> > > > >> >> > > >> the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> QCIND
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > value
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > populate the obs_qty (i.e.
quality
> > > control)
> > > > >> >> setting?
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > John
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:34
PM, John
> > > Halley
> > > > >> >> Gotway
> > > > >> >> > <
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > johnhg at ucar.edu>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Perry,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Until users dive into the
details,
> we
> > > > won't
> > > > >> >> know
> > > > >> >> > > about
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> these
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > sorts
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > of
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> -1
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > vs -8 issues. But once we
identify
> > the
> > > > >> >> > > requirements,
> > > > >> >> > > >> we
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> can
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > update
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > software to handle them.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > So please keep the feedback
coming.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > John
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:31
PM,
> > > > >> >> > > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> via
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > RT
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > <
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Hi, John,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> OK, thanks! I thought the
latest
> > > version
> > > > >> of
> > > > >> >> MET
> > > > >> >> > > >> that we
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> were
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > using
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> was
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> configured for the air
quality
> > > > >> applications?
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Perry
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:26
PM,
> John
> > > > >> Halley
> > > > >> >> > Gotway
> > > > >> >> > > >> via
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> RT <
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Perry,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > I just grabbed them and
ran the
> > > > forecast
> > > > >> >> data
> > > > >> >> > > >> through
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> plot_data_plane
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > utility. Looks like
specifying
> the
> > > > level
> > > > >> >> as an
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > accumulation
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > type
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> does
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > trick:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-
6.1/bin/plot_
> > > data_plane
> > > > >> >> > > >> AWIP3D18.tm00
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > OZCON_1hr.ps
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON";
level="A1";'
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-
6.1/bin/plot_
> > > data_plane
> > > > >> >> > > >> AWIP3D18.tm00
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > OZCON_8hr.ps
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON";
level="A8";'
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > The resulting images are
> attached.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Next, I ran pb2nc using
the
> -index
> > > > >> option to
> > > > >> >> > see
> > > > >> >> > > a
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > description
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > of
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > prepda contents:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-
6.1/bin/pb2nc
> > prepda.
> > > > >> >> 2017081000 <(201)%20708-1000> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > >> >> > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > prepda.2017081000.nc
> > > > >> >> > > /usr/local/met-6.1/share/met/
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > config/PB2NCConfig_default
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > -index -log
pb2nc_index.log
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Header
variables:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SID:
STATION
> > > > >> IDENTIFICATION
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: XOB:
LONGITUDE
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: YOB:
LATITUDE
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: DHR:
OBSERVATION
> > > TIME
> > > > >> MINUS
> > > > >> >> > > CYCLE
> > > > >> >> > > >> > TIME
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ELV:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYP:
PREPBUFR
> > REPORT
> > > > >> TYPE
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: T29: DATA
DUMP
> > > REPORT
> > > > >> TYPE
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ITP:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Observation
> variables:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: COPO:
> CONCENTRATION
> > > OF
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > POLLUTANT
> > > > >> >> types:
> > > > >> >> > > >> AIRNOW
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYPO: TYPE
OF
> > > POLLUTANT
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: CAT:
PREPBUFR
> DATA
> > > > LEVEL
> > > > >> >> > > CATEGORY
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: PROCN:
PROCESS
> > NUMBER
> > > > FOR
> > > > >> >> THIS
> > > > >> >> > MPI
> > > > >> >> > > >> RUN
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > (OBTAINED
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> FROM
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > SCRIPT)
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SQN:
REPORT
> > SEQUENCE
> > > > >> NUMBER
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: QCIND:
QUALITY
> > CONTROL
> > > > >> >> > INDICATION
> > > > >> >> > > OF
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > FOLLOWING
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DATA types:
AIRNOW
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TSIG: TIME
> > > SIGNIFICANCE
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: RPT:
REPORTED
> > > > >> OBSERVATION
> > > > >> >> TIME
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TPHR: TIME
PERIOD
> > OR
> > > > >> >> > DISPLACEMENT
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > I see the COPO and TPHR
> > observations
> > > > >> listed.
> > > > >> >> > > We'll
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> need to
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > update
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > PB2NC code to handle the
logic
> > you've
> > > > >> >> > described.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > One option for specifying
the 1
> vs
> > 8
> > > > hour
> > > > >> >> > > >> difference
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> would
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > be
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> mimic
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> how
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > different precip
accumulation
> > > intervals
> > > > >> are
> > > > >> >> > > stored
> > > > >> >> > > >> for
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > gauges.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> I'll
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> look
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > more into how we might do
that.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Thanks,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > John
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at
12:17 PM,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > via
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > RT
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > <
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > <URL:
> > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Hi, John,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > I was just wondering if
you
> have
> > > > found
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> >> > > >> received
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> these
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > files.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Thanks!
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Perry
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at
10:30
> AM,
> > > > Perry
> > > > >> >> > > Shafran -
> > > > >> >> > > >> > NOAA
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Affiliate
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov>
wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > I just transferred
some model
> > > files
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> >> an
> > > > >> >> > ob
> > > > >> >> > > >> file
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> here
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > on
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Theia.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> All
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > these model files
verify at
> the
> > > ob
> > > > >> time
> > > > >> >> > here.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > Have
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> a
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > look:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
/scratch4/NCEPDEV/meso/save/
> > > > >> >> > > >> > Perry.Shafran/for_john
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Perry
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018
at 6:55
> > PM,
> > > > John
> > > > >> >> > Halley
> > > > >> >> > > >> > Gotway
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> via
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > RT
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > <
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu>
wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Hi Perry,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Can you please point
me to a
> > > model
> > > > >> >> output
> > > > >> >> > > file
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > containing
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > OZCON
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> fields? Presumably,
these
> are
> > > in
> > > > >> GRIB1
> > > > >> >> > or 2
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> format,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > and
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > hopefully,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> there's
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> some flag in the
header that
> > > will
> > > > >> >> enable
> > > > >> >> > us
> > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > distinguish
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > between
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> GRIB
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> records containing 1
and 8
> > hour
> > > > >> >> averages.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> As for the point
> > observations, I
> > > > >> >> suspect
> > > > >> >> > > that
> > > > >> >> > > >> > we'll
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > need
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> add
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> logic
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > to
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> PB2NC to distinguish
between
> > > the 1
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> >> 8
> > > > >> >> > > hour
> > > > >> >> > > >> > COPO
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > concentrations.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Perhaps
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> we could update PB2NC
to use
> > the
> > > > >> TPHR
> > > > >> >> > values
> > > > >> >> > > >> to
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > renamed
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > COPO
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> to
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> COPO_1
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > and
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> COPO_8?
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Are these COPO point
> > > observations
> > > > >> >> present
> > > > >> >> > in
> > > > >> >> > > >> NDAS
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> or
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > GDAS
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > PrepBUFR
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > files?
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Thanks,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> John
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018
at 1:40
> > PM,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > via
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> RT <
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu>
wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Tue Feb 20 13:40:01
2018:
> > > > Request
> > > > >> >> 84134
> > > > >> >> > > was
> > > > >> >> > > >> > acted
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > upon.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Transaction: Ticket
> created
> > by
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Queue:
met_help
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Subject:
verifying
> > ozone
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Owner:
Nobody
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Requestors:
> > > > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Status: new
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Ticket <URL:
> > > > >> >> > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Hi, everyone,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I am helping the
AQM group
> > > > verify
> > > > >> >> ozone
> > > > >> >> > > and
> > > > >> >> > > >> I
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> need
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > some
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> assistance
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > in
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> using
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > PB2NC (and then
later
> > > > point_stat,
> > > > >> but
> > > > >> >> > > let's
> > > > >> >> > > >> > start
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > with
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > PB2NC). I
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > need
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> to
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > be able to read in
two
> > > > quantities
> > > > >> >> from
> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> prepbufr
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > file
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > then
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> combine
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > that to be able to
compare
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > >> two
> > > > >> >> > > model
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> items.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the bufr file,
the
> > > variables
> > > > at
> > > > >> >> hand
> > > > >> >> > > are
> > > > >> >> > > >> > COPO
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > (the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > ozone
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> concentration),
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > and also TPHR.
TPHR is
> > either
> > > > -1
> > > > >> or
> > > > >> >> -8
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> depending on
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > whether
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> observed
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > ozone is a 1-hr or
8-hr
> > > average.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In essence, we have
two
> > > entities
> > > > >> here
> > > > >> >> > > >> depending
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> on
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> value of
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > TPHR:
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > 1-hr average ozone
and the
> > > 8-hr
> > > > >> >> average
> > > > >> >> > > >> ozone.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> But
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > they
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> have
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > same
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > value.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the model we
also have
> > two
> > > > >> >> variables.
> > > > >> >> > > >> Both
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> are
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > called
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > OZCON,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> but
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > first one in the
file is a
> > > 1-hr
> > > > >> >> average
> > > > >> >> > > and
> > > > >> >> > > >> the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > second
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > one
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> is
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 8-hr
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average.
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > The trick here is
> verifying
> > > 1-hr
> > > > >> >> average
> > > > >> >> > > >> with
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> 1-hr
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > average,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> and
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> 8-hr
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average with 8-hr
average.
> > I
> > > > >> think
> > > > >> >> > there
> > > > >> >> > > >> is a
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> multiplication
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> factor
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > in
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > there somewhere, as
the
> obs
> > > are
> > > > in
> > > > >> >> units
> > > > >> >> > > of
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > mole/mole,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > while
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > model
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> is
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > in parts per
billion
> (ppb).
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I don't know if
you've
> > spoken
> > > > with
> > > > >> >> the
> > > > >> >> > AQM
> > > > >> >> > > >> team
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> on
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > how
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> exactly
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> to do
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> this,
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > but I was hoping to
help
> > them
> > > > with
> > > > >> >> this.
> > > > >> >> > > If
> > > > >> >> > > >> > you
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> can
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > advise
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> on
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> how
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > to
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > do
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > this, that would be
great!
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Thanks!
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Perry
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: verifying ozone
From: John Halley Gotway
Time: Wed Mar 28 13:50:28 2018
Perry,
Yep, the bug was introduced in met-7.0... and stuck around for
met-7.1_beta1. Howard added a fix to both the met trunk and the
met-7.0_bugfix branch... and I posted the fixes to the MET website:
https://dtcenter.org/met/users/support/known_issues/METv7.0/index.php
Julie is back in the office tomorrow and will patch the 7.0 build and
compile met-7.1_beta2 once I have it ready.
Thanks,
John
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 12:22 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
>
> Hi, Julie,
>
> Just an FYI - I just ran the 7.0 version of MET and it also failed
with the
> same error, interestingly. But others did not report a problem like
this
> in 7.0? Weird.
>
> Perry
>
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Julie Prestopnik via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Perry.
> >
> > I can reproduce the problem on both tide and our local machine.
It looks
> > like an issue with the logic in when writing to the NetCDF output
file.
> > One of our software developers in working on the problem. We will
let
> you
> > know when it is resolved.
> >
> > I will be out of the office this coming Monday - Wednesday, just
FYI, so
> I
> > may not be able to recompile on tide until next week.
> >
> > Regarding your question about the 7.1 beta, I think you are
probably the
> > only one who knows about the 7.1 beta, but I don't think it would
be a
> > problem if you mentioned it to your colleagues.
> >
> > Julie
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:20 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> > >
> > > Hi, Julie,
> > >
> > > Yikes, it's all part a script, and it's not quite the usage.
But here
> > are
> > > the commands used from the output:
> > >
> > > pb2nc prepda.2018032200 prepda.nc.2018032200
> > > /meso/save/Perry.Shafran/verif/nwtest/parm/PB2NCConfig -v
> > > 3
> > >
> > > point_stat AWIP3D00.tm00 prepda.nc.2018032200
> > > /meso/save/Perry.Shafran/verif/nwtest/parm/PointStatConfig_cv -v
3
> > >
> > > You can run these if you go to the directory
> > > /stmpp2/Perry.Shafran/tmpnwtest/verf_gridtobs_nam_00/00.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > BTW - am I the only one who knows about the 7.1 beta? In case
I'm not
> > > supposed to bring it up among my colleagues?
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > Perry
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Julie Prestopnik via RT <
> > > met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Perry. My apologies for the delay in responding. I was
out of
> the
> > > > office.
> > > > I have copied over your script and would like to run it to see
if I
> can
> > > > reproduce the error. I see the usage is:
> > > >
> > > > verf_gridtobs.sh $model $vday $vcyc
> > > >
> > > > Can you please send me the exact command line you are running
so
> that I
> > > can
> > > > try to reproduce the error? Or, to simply things you could
send me a
> > > single
> > > > command line for pb2nc and point_stat so that I can run that.
The
> > latter
> > > > option would be preferable in case my environment isn't set up
as
> yours
> > > is
> > > > with all necessary items.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > Julie
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 2:28 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT
<
> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi there,
> > > > >
> > > > > I am trying out the new 7.1 beta, and I got this error in
both
> pb2nc
> > > and
> > > > > point_stat (except for point_stat replace the 146 in the
error with
> > > 80):
> > > > >
> > > > > terminate called after throwing an instance of
> > > > > 'netCDF::exceptions::NcBadId'
> > > > > what(): NetCDF: Not a valid ID
> > > > > file: ncVar.cpp line:146
> > > > > /meso/save/Perry.Shafran/verif/nwtest/ush/verf_
> > gridtobs_fits.sh[143]:
> > > .:
> > > > > line 217:
> > > > > 41145: Abort(coredump)
> > > > >
> > > > > Any idea what the issue is here?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > >
> > > > > Perry
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Perry Shafran - NOAA
Affiliate <
> > > > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi, Julie,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Perry
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 2:50 PM, Julie Prestopnik via RT <
> > > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Hi Perry.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> met-7.1_beta1 is now installed on tide. You can access
it by
> > > running
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> following:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> module use /global/noscrub/Julie.Prestopnik/modulefiles
> > > > > >> module load met/7.1_beta1
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Please let me know if you have any questions or encounter
any
> > > > problems.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > >> Julie
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 3:41 PM, John Halley Gotway <
> > > johnhg at ucar.edu>
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > Perry and Julie,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > I just created a met-7.1_beta1 release to enable Perry
to do
> the
> > > > > testing
> > > > > >> > he needs.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > I posted the tarball to the MET website:
> > > > > >> >
www.dtcenter.org/met/users/downloads/MET_releases/met-7.
> > > > > >> > 1_beta1.20180316.tar.gz
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Perry, I assume it'd be most convenient for you to have
this
> > > > available
> > > > > >> on
> > > > > >> > WCOSS for testing? If not, please let us know where.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Julie, assuming Perry wants it on the dev side of
WCOSS, can
> you
> > > > > please
> > > > > >> > install it in your personal area, and tell Perry how he
can
> > access
> > > > it?
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Here's the very short list of changes included in
> met-7.1_beta1
> > > > (taken
> > > > > >> > from the top-level README file):
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Version 7.1 BETA 1 Release Notes:
> > > > > >> > --------------------------------
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > - Make logic for finding matching UGRD/VGRD
verification tasks
> > > more
> > > > > >> robust
> > > > > >> > in
> > > > > >> > Point-Stat and Grid-Stat.
> > > > > >> > - Fix PB2NC's computation of valid time for AIRNOW
> observations.
> > > > > >> > - Minor bugfix for Series-Analysis when computing
min/max
> timing
> > > > info
> > > > > >> for
> > > > > >> > series with some missing input files.
> > > > > >> > - Enable vld_thresh = 0 in Ensemble-Stat and Series-
Analysis.
> > > > > >> > - Update pntnc2ascii.R Rscript to handle obs_var
variable.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > > >> > John
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 6:46 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov
via
> RT
> > <
> > > > > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > >
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> Hi, John,
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> At this point my main concern is the ability to run
MET and
> get
> > > > good
> > > > > >> MET
> > > > > >> >> output on some of the air quality items. Then once
that's
> > done,
> > > > > worry
> > > > > >> >> later about METViewer concerns. I do think we'll want
to
> > > > eventually
> > > > > >> >> compare VSDB vs MET output using METViewer, but that
seems to
> > be
> > > a
> > > > > down
> > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > >> >> road issue (though not too far down the road, so if
there is
> a
> > > > > >> METViewer
> > > > > >> >> update coming up, put this in it).
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> Thanks!
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> Perry
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 5:31 PM, John Halley Gotway
via RT <
> > > > > >> >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> > Perry,
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > On Monday, we decided that I should do the first
(and very
> > > early)
> > > > > >> beta
> > > > > >> >> > release of met-7.1 to get this feature to you for
testing.
> > But
> > > > > this
> > > > > >> >> > version really shouldn't be used for anything other
than
> > > testing.
> > > > > >> Since
> > > > > >> >> > this is a beta version for 7.1, my inclination would
be to
> > > > > increment
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> >> > version number of the output now... to 7.1. The
only
> > downside
> > > is
> > > > > >> that
> > > > > >> >> it
> > > > > >> >> > won't be possible to load 7.1 output in METViewer.
The
> > loader
> > > > will
> > > > > >> >> error
> > > > > >> >> > out and say that it doesn't know anything about
version
> 7.1.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > If you need to be able to load this output into
METViewer,
> we
> > > > > should
> > > > > >> >> keep
> > > > > >> >> > the version number back at 7.0... but I'm really
worried
> > about
> > > > > >> >> version-itis
> > > > > >> >> > here. I don't want to create a confusing mess of
output.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > Any thoughts?
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > Thanks,
> > > > > >> >> > John
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:57 AM,
perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> via
> > > RT
> > > > <
> > > > > >> >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Tic
> > > ket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > Hi, John,
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > I'm not sure I caught whether you have something
for me
> to
> > > test
> > > > > or
> > > > > >> >> not.
> > > > > >> >> > I
> > > > > >> >> > > think you were asking how to deliver these updates
for
> > ozone
> > > > so I
> > > > > >> >> guess
> > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > >> >> > > need to deliver first before I can test anything.
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > Thanks!
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > Perry
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Perry Shafran -
NOAA
> > > Affiliate
> > > > <
> > > > > >> >> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > Hi, John,
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > Super, thanks! Let me know if there are any
aspects of
> > it
> > > > that
> > > > > >> need
> > > > > >> >> > > > clarification.
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > Perry
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:48 PM, John Halley
Gotway via
> > RT <
> > > > > >> >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> Perry,
> > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> Yes, I received it. Thanks for the info. I
wrote up
> a
> > > > > >> development
> > > > > >> >> > > ticket
> > > > > >> >> > > >> in JiRA to handle this and Howard Soh is taking
a look
> > at
> > > > it.
> > > > > >> I'll
> > > > > >> >> > let
> > > > > >> >> > > >> you
> > > > > >> >> > > >> know when we have an update for you.
> > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > >> >> > > >> John
> > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:31 PM,
> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > via
> > > > > RT <
> > > > > >> >> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > Hi, John,
> > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > I was just wondering if you got this message
> regarding
> > > the
> > > > > >> DHR in
> > > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > >> >> > > >> ozone
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > airnow file. I hadn't received any
acknowledgement
> of
> > > it.
> > > > > I
> > > > > >> >> think
> > > > > >> >> > > >> that if
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > we are going to read this data correctly for
> > > verification,
> > > > > >> we'll
> > > > > >> >> > have
> > > > > >> >> > > >> to be
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > aware of this and use the DHR to add DHR to
the
> file's
> > > > > >> timestamp
> > > > > >> >> in
> > > > > >> >> > > >> order
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > to get the right ob at the right time.
> > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > Thanks!
> > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > Perry
> > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Perry
Shafran -
> NOAA
> > > > > >> Affiliate <
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > > Hi, John,
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > > For ozone (and for PM likely as well), the
DHR
> will
> > > tell
> > > > > you
> > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > >> >> > > time
> > > > > >> >> > > >> of
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > > the observation. The DHR ranges from -11
to 12 in
> > > each
> > > > > >> file,
> > > > > >> >> so
> > > > > >> >> > if
> > > > > >> >> > > >> you
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > > have an observation with DHR of -10, for
example,
> > that
> > > > > >> >> > observations
> > > > > >> >> > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > > valid at 02Z. I guess I should have done
better
> to
> > > note
> > > > > >> this
> > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > > previously, but you will need this
additional
> > > > information
> > > > > in
> > > > > >> >> order
> > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > >> get
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > > the valid time of the observation. My
apologies
> for
> > > not
> > > > > >> >> realizing
> > > > > >> >> > > >> this
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > > sooner (like before 7.0 was released).
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > > The 00Z valid time (as in your example), I
just
> > > > realized,
> > > > > >> is a
> > > > > >> >> > > special
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > > case. Since the DHR ranges from -11 to 12,
that
> > means
> > > > > that
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> >> > > valid
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > times
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > > in the file range from 01Z to 00Z the next
day.
> > > That's
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> reason
> > > > > >> >> > > for
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > this
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > > - it is indeed the 2017080912 <(201)%20708-
0912>
> > > <(201)%20708-0912>
> > > > > >> <(201)%20708-0912>
> > > > > >> >> <(201)%20708-0912> file but this
> > > > > >> >> > > >> particular
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > > valid time is 2017081000 <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > >> >> <(201)%20708-1000> because DHR is 12 in
> > > > > >> >> > > this
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > > case. So that makes it extra special fun
for
> > > verifying
> > > > > for
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> >> > 00Z
> > > > > >> >> > > >> valid
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > > time, since we will have to go to the
previous
> day's
> > > obs
> > > > > >> file
> > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > >> >> > > >> verify
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > > that. Every other hour of the day, you
won't see
> > this
> > > > > >> >> mismatch.
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > > Perry
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:59 AM, John
Halley
> Gotway
> > > via
> > > > > RT <
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> Perry,
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> Yes, I see that all the AWIP* GRIB2 files
you
> sent
> > me
> > > > are
> > > > > >> >> valid
> > > > > >> >> > at
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> 2017081000.
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> However, the point observations in the
prepda.
> > > > 2017081000
> > > > > >> are
> > > > > >> >> > valid
> > > > > >> >> > > >> at
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> 20170809_120000. Or at least that's what
the
> > output
> > > of
> > > > > >> PB2NC
> > > > > >> >> > tells
> > > > > >> >> > > >> me!
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> The timestamps of the data contained in
prepda.
> > > > > 2017081000
> > > > > >> is
> > > > > >> >> > > >> 12-hours
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> earlier than the timestamp of that file
> indicates.
> > > > > Here's
> > > > > >> a
> > > > > >> >> log
> > > > > >> >> > > >> message
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> from PB2NC listing out the "center time"
for that
> > > file:
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> DEBUG 1: Processing Bufr File: prepda.
> > 2017081000
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> DEBUG 2: Bufr Time Center:
> 20170809_120000
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> Perhaps there's a problem in the naming
> convention
> > > for
> > > > > that
> > > > > >> >> > > "prepda"
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> file... or perhaps there's a good reason
for the
> > > > 12-hour
> > > > > >> >> > offset...
> > > > > >> >> > > or
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> perhaps there's some problem in the MET
code and
> > > we're
> > > > > not
> > > > > >> >> > reading
> > > > > >> >> > > >> data
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> from that file correctly?
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> Thanks,
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> John
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:37 AM,
> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > via
> > > > > >> >> RT <
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Tic
> > > > > >> >> ket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > OK, thanks! So this is included in the
latest
> > MET
> > > > > >> release.
> > > > > >> >> I
> > > > > >> >> > > think
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> there
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > will definitely be other questions, if I
want
> to
> > be
> > > > > able
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> >> > > verify
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > each
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > hourly forecast of ozone with the
observation.
> > The
> > > > DHR
> > > > > >> >> tells
> > > > > >> >> > us
> > > > > >> >> > > >> which
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> hour
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > that we are looking for to verify.
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > Perry
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:25 AM, John
Halley
> > Gotway
> > > > via
> > > > > >> RT <
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > Hi Perry,
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > We just posted the met-7.0 release
yesterday.
> > > > Julie
> > > > > >> >> > Prestopnik
> > > > > >> >> > > >> is
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > actually
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > out at NCEP today, and she'll be the
one to
> > > install
> > > > > it
> > > > > >> on
> > > > > >> >> > > >> WCOSS. So
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> I'll
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > let her chime in to let us know when
she's
> able
> > > to
> > > > do
> > > > > >> >> that.
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > Thanks,
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > John
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:27 AM,
> > > > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > >> >> via
> > > > > >> >> > RT
> > > > > >> >> > > <
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > > >> >> > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > I am able to start working on this
today.
> Is
> > > > this
> > > > > >> >> > available
> > > > > >> >> > > >> for
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > testing
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > now?
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Also I'm not entirely sure what you
mean in
> > > that
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> obs
> > > > > >> >> > and
> > > > > >> >> > > >> the
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> model
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > don't match up well in time? In the
> example
> > I
> > > > sent
> > > > > >> you,
> > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > >> >> > > >> have
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > a
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> set
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > of
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > observations and all the forecast
files
> that
> > > > verify
> > > > > >> at
> > > > > >> >> that
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> particular
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > time. Both the model and observed
bufr
> file
> > > have
> > > > > >> >> 1-hourly
> > > > > >> >> > > >> fields
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > (hourly
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > fields of 1-hr and hourly fields of
8-hr
> > ozone
> > > -
> > > > > >> kind of
> > > > > >> >> > hard
> > > > > >> >> > > >> to
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > imagine
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > that, but they are just values). So
we
> will
> > > also
> > > > > >> need a
> > > > > >> >> > way
> > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> match
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > up
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > the observed field with the modeled
field
> at
> > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > corresponding
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > time.
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > (For
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > example, matching the 3-hr forecast
from
> the
> > > 12Z
> > > > > >> model
> > > > > >> >> run
> > > > > >> >> > > with
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > the
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> 15Z
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > observed field.)
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > I think this is best achieved with a
> > different
> > > > > >> >> execution of
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> point_stat
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > for
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > each individual hour, because that's
how I
> do
> > > > > >> gridtobs
> > > > > >> >> > > anyway.
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > What are your thoughts on the above?
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Perry
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:32 PM, John
Halley
> > > > Gotway
> > > > > >> via
> > > > > >> >> RT <
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Hi Perry,
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Howard Soh updated the logic in
the PB2NC
> > to
> > > > > handle
> > > > > >> >> the 1
> > > > > >> >> > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> 8-hour
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > COPO
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > observations in the way we
discussed. I
> > > wanted
> > > > > to
> > > > > >> let
> > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > >> >> > > >> know
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> that
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > I
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > tested it this afternoon and got
some
> good
> > > > > results.
> > > > > >> >> The
> > > > > >> >> > > >> sample
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > fcst/obs
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > data you sent doesn't line up well
in
> time,
> > > so
> > > > I
> > > > > >> just
> > > > > >> >> > set a
> > > > > >> >> > > >> very
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > large
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > matching time window in Point-
Stat.
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Here's the relevant pieces of the
> > Point-Stat
> > > > > config
> > > > > >> >> file:
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > fcst = {
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > field = [
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "OZCON"; level =
"A01"; },
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "OZCON"; level =
"A08"; }
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > ];
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > }
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > obs = {
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > message_type = [ "AIRNOW" ];
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > convert(x) = x*10^9;
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > field = [
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level =
"A01"; },
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level =
"A08"; }
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > ];
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > }
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > And I'm just *guessing* at that
> conversion
> > > > > factor.
> > > > > >> >> The
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > resulting
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > numbers
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > look about right, but its up to
you to
> > > confirm.
> > > > > >> Using
> > > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > sample
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > data
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > you
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > sent me, this results in a mean
error
> value
> > > of
> > > > > >> 12.64
> > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > >> >> > > >> 15.48
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > for
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > the
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > 1
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > and 8-hour accums, respectively.
But the
> > > > > fcst/obs
> > > > > >> >> data
> > > > > >> >> > are
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> actually
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > offset
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > by 12 hours so these numbers don't
mean
> > much,
> > > > > other
> > > > > >> >> than
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > demonstrating
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > there isn't a huge order of
magnitude
> > > > difference.
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > John
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:06 PM,
John
> > Halley
> > > > > >> Gotway <
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> johnhg at ucar.edu
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > Perry,
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > I think I prefer option 2 as
well.
> I'll
> > > ask
> > > > > >> Howard
> > > > > >> >> > Soh,
> > > > > >> >> > > >> one
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > of
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> the
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > developers here, to add specific
logic
> > for
> > > > the
> > > > > >> >> AIRNOW
> > > > > >> >> > > >> message
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> type,
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > where...
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > - level = absolute value of
TPHR
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > - qc flag = QCIND
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > John
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:00 PM,
> > > > > >> >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > >> >> > > >> via
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > RT
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> <
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Hi, John,
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> What would be easier in
comparing to
> the
> > > > model
> > > > > >> >> output,
> > > > > >> >> > > do
> > > > > >> >> > > >> you
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > think?
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > I
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> think that having it as some
sort of
> > > > > >> "accumulation
> > > > > >> >> > > >> variable"
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> (the
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > 2nd
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> option) would work.
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> In the model, though, they are
not
> > listed
> > > as
> > > > > >> >> either 1
> > > > > >> >> > or
> > > > > >> >> > > >> 8 hr
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> accumulations/averages. They
are
> listed
> > > as
> > > > > >> either,
> > > > > >> >> > for
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > example
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > for
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > 24
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> hr forecast, either "23-24 hr
ave
> fcst"
> > or
> > > > > >> "16-24
> > > > > >> >> hr
> > > > > >> >> > ave
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > fcst".
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > Would
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > be
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> easier if it said "1 hr ave
fcst" or
> "8
> > hr
> > > > ave
> > > > > >> >> fcst",
> > > > > >> >> > > but
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> again,
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > that's
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> not
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> what we got. So I'm guessing
that
> might
> > > > make
> > > > > >> it a
> > > > > >> >> > > little
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > more
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > challenging
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> for the model to script up?
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Perry
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:50
PM, John
> > > Halley
> > > > > >> Gotway
> > > > > >> >> > via
> > > > > >> >> > > >> RT <
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Perry,
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > I wanted to check how point
> > observations
> > > > of
> > > > > >> >> precip
> > > > > >> >> > are
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> stored in
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> PrepBUFR
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > so I ran PB2NC on an old NDAS
file
> > using
> > > > the
> > > > > >> >> -index
> > > > > >> >> > > >> option.
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > Here's
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> what I
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > found:
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP06: TOTAL
> > > PRECIPITATION
> > > > > >> PAST 6
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > HOURS
> types:
> > > > ADPSFC
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP24: TOTAL
> > > PRECIPITATION
> > > > > >> PAST 24
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > HOURS
types:
> > > > ADPSFC
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > So basically, the
accumulation
> > interval
> > > > > >> exists in
> > > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > observation
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> variable
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > name. Following that
paradigm, if
> the
> > > > > AIRNOW
> > > > > >> >> > > >> observations
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> were
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > stored
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > using COPO01 and COPO08, then
MET
> > would
> > > > > >> already
> > > > > >> >> be
> > > > > >> >> > > able
> > > > > >> >> > > >> to
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > handle
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > them
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > already. But I suppose we're
likely
> > > stuck
> > > > > >> with
> > > > > >> >> what
> > > > > >> >> > > >> we've
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> got.
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > I can see 2 ways we could
handle
> this
> > > for
> > > > > >> >> processing
> > > > > >> >> > > >> AIRNOW
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > message
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > types...
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Option 1: Follow the precip
example
> > and
> > > > > modify
> > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> observation
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > variable
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > names by appending the TPHR
value.
> > > > Instead
> > > > > of
> > > > > >> >> COPO,
> > > > > >> >> > > >> we'd
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> have
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> observations
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > named COPO01 and COPO08. And
if we
> > ever
> > > > see
> > > > > >> >> TPHR =
> > > > > >> >> > > -24,
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> that'd
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > produce
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> a
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > COPO24 variable name.
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Option 2: We could keep the
COPO
> > > variable
> > > > > name
> > > > > >> >> > > >> unchanged,
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > and
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > instead
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> set
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the "level" value for these
> > observations
> > > > to
> > > > > >> >> indicate
> > > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > accumulation
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > interval. If you look at the
> ascii2nc
> > > > usage
> > > > > >> >> > > statement,
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> you'll
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > see
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > following:
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > "Level" is the pressure
level
> (hPa)
> > > or
> > > > > >> >> > accumulation
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> interval
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> (HH[MMSS]).
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > So we could use the value of
TPHR to
> > > > define
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> >> > level
> > > > > >> >> > > >> as an
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> "accumulation"
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > interval.
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Either option could be made
to work
> in
> > > > MET.
> > > > > >> Does
> > > > > >> >> > one
> > > > > >> >> > > >> make
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> more
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > sense
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > you than the other?
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > While we're doing this, I
assume we
> > > should
> > > > > >> also
> > > > > >> >> > using
> > > > > >> >> > > >> the
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> QCIND
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > value
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > populate the obs_qty (i.e.
quality
> > > > control)
> > > > > >> >> setting?
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > John
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:34
PM,
> John
> > > > Halley
> > > > > >> >> Gotway
> > > > > >> >> > <
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > johnhg at ucar.edu>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Perry,
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Until users dive into the
details,
> > we
> > > > > won't
> > > > > >> >> know
> > > > > >> >> > > about
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> these
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > sorts
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > of
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> -1
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > vs -8 issues. But once we
> identify
> > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > requirements,
> > > > > >> >> > > >> we
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> can
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > update
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > software to handle them.
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > So please keep the feedback
> coming.
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks,
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > John
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at
1:31 PM,
> > > > > >> >> > > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> via
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > RT
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > <
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> <URL:
> https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Hi, John,
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> OK, thanks! I thought the
latest
> > > > version
> > > > > >> of
> > > > > >> >> MET
> > > > > >> >> > > >> that we
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> were
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > using
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> was
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> configured for the air
quality
> > > > > >> applications?
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Perry
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at
3:26 PM,
> > John
> > > > > >> Halley
> > > > > >> >> > Gotway
> > > > > >> >> > > >> via
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> RT <
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Perry,
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > I just grabbed them and
ran the
> > > > > forecast
> > > > > >> >> data
> > > > > >> >> > > >> through
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> the
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> plot_data_plane
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > utility. Looks like
specifying
> > the
> > > > > level
> > > > > >> >> as an
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > accumulation
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > type
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> does
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> the
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > trick:
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-
6.1/bin/plot_
> > > > data_plane
> > > > > >> >> > > >> AWIP3D18.tm00
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > OZCON_1hr.ps
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON";
level="A1";'
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-
6.1/bin/plot_
> > > > data_plane
> > > > > >> >> > > >> AWIP3D18.tm00
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > OZCON_8hr.ps
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON";
level="A8";'
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > The resulting images are
> > attached.
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Next, I ran pb2nc using
the
> > -index
> > > > > >> option to
> > > > > >> >> > see
> > > > > >> >> > > a
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > description
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > of
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > prepda contents:
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-
6.1/bin/pb2nc
> > > prepda.
> > > > > >> >> 2017081000 <(201)%20708-1000> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > prepda.2017081000.nc
> > > > > >> >> > > /usr/local/met-6.1/share/met/
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
config/PB2NCConfig_default
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > -index -log
pb2nc_index.log
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Header
variables:
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SID:
STATION
> > > > > >> IDENTIFICATION
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: XOB:
LONGITUDE
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: YOB:
LATITUDE
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: DHR:
> OBSERVATION
> > > > TIME
> > > > > >> MINUS
> > > > > >> >> > > CYCLE
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > TIME
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ELV:
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYP:
PREPBUFR
> > > REPORT
> > > > > >> TYPE
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: T29:
DATA DUMP
> > > > REPORT
> > > > > >> TYPE
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ITP:
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Observation
> > variables:
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: COPO:
> > CONCENTRATION
> > > > OF
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > POLLUTANT
> > > > > >> >> types:
> > > > > >> >> > > >> AIRNOW
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYPO:
TYPE OF
> > > > POLLUTANT
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: CAT:
PREPBUFR
> > DATA
> > > > > LEVEL
> > > > > >> >> > > CATEGORY
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: PROCN:
PROCESS
> > > NUMBER
> > > > > FOR
> > > > > >> >> THIS
> > > > > >> >> > MPI
> > > > > >> >> > > >> RUN
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > (OBTAINED
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> FROM
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > SCRIPT)
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SQN:
REPORT
> > > SEQUENCE
> > > > > >> NUMBER
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: QCIND:
QUALITY
> > > CONTROL
> > > > > >> >> > INDICATION
> > > > > >> >> > > OF
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > FOLLOWING
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DATA types:
AIRNOW
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TSIG:
TIME
> > > > SIGNIFICANCE
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: RPT:
REPORTED
> > > > > >> OBSERVATION
> > > > > >> >> TIME
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TPHR:
TIME
> PERIOD
> > > OR
> > > > > >> >> > DISPLACEMENT
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > I see the COPO and TPHR
> > > observations
> > > > > >> listed.
> > > > > >> >> > > We'll
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> need to
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > update
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > PB2NC code to handle the
logic
> > > you've
> > > > > >> >> > described.
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > One option for
specifying the 1
> > vs
> > > 8
> > > > > hour
> > > > > >> >> > > >> difference
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> would
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > be
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> mimic
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> how
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > different precip
accumulation
> > > > intervals
> > > > > >> are
> > > > > >> >> > > stored
> > > > > >> >> > > >> for
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > gauges.
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> I'll
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> look
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > more into how we might
do that.
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Thanks,
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > John
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at
12:17
> PM,
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > via
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > RT
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > <
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu>
wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > <URL:
> > > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Hi, John,
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > I was just wondering
if you
> > have
> > > > > found
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> >> > > >> received
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> these
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > files.
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Thanks!
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Perry
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018
at 10:30
> > AM,
> > > > > Perry
> > > > > >> >> > > Shafran -
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > NOAA
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Affiliate
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
perry.shafran at noaa.gov>
> wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > I just transferred
some
> model
> > > > files
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> >> an
> > > > > >> >> > ob
> > > > > >> >> > > >> file
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> here
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > on
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Theia.
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> All
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > these model files
verify at
> > the
> > > > ob
> > > > > >> time
> > > > > >> >> > here.
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > Have
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> a
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > look:
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> /scratch4/NCEPDEV/meso/save/
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > Perry.Shafran/for_john
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Perry
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018
at
> 6:55
> > > PM,
> > > > > John
> > > > > >> >> > Halley
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > Gotway
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> via
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > RT
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > <
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu>
wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Hi Perry,
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Can you please
point me
> to a
> > > > model
> > > > > >> >> output
> > > > > >> >> > > file
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > containing
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > OZCON
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> fields?
Presumably, these
> > are
> > > > in
> > > > > >> GRIB1
> > > > > >> >> > or 2
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> format,
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > and
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > hopefully,
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> there's
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> some flag in the
header
> that
> > > > will
> > > > > >> >> enable
> > > > > >> >> > us
> > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > distinguish
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > between
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> the
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> GRIB
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> records containing
1 and 8
> > > hour
> > > > > >> >> averages.
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> As for the point
> > > observations, I
> > > > > >> >> suspect
> > > > > >> >> > > that
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > we'll
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > need
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> add
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> logic
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > to
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> PB2NC to
distinguish
> between
> > > > the 1
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> >> 8
> > > > > >> >> > > hour
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > COPO
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > concentrations.
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Perhaps
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> we could update
PB2NC to
> use
> > > the
> > > > > >> TPHR
> > > > > >> >> > values
> > > > > >> >> > > >> to
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > renamed
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > COPO
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> COPO_1
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> COPO_8?
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Are these COPO
point
> > > > observations
> > > > > >> >> present
> > > > > >> >> > in
> > > > > >> >> > > >> NDAS
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> or
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > GDAS
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > PrepBUFR
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > files?
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> John
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> On Tue, Feb 20,
2018 at
> 1:40
> > > PM,
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > via
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> RT <
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu>
wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Tue Feb 20
13:40:01
> 2018:
> > > > > Request
> > > > > >> >> 84134
> > > > > >> >> > > was
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > acted
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > upon.
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Transaction:
Ticket
> > created
> > > by
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Queue:
met_help
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Subject:
verifying
> > > ozone
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Owner:
Nobody
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Requestors:
> > > > > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Status: new
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Ticket <URL:
> > > > > >> >> > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Hi, everyone,
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I am helping the
AQM
> group
> > > > > verify
> > > > > >> >> ozone
> > > > > >> >> > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > >> I
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> need
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > some
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> assistance
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > in
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> using
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > PB2NC (and then
later
> > > > > point_stat,
> > > > > >> but
> > > > > >> >> > > let's
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > start
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > with
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > PB2NC). I
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > need
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> to
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > be able to read
in two
> > > > > quantities
> > > > > >> >> from
> > > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> prepbufr
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > file
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > then
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> combine
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > that to be able
to
> compare
> > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> two
> > > > > >> >> > > model
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> items.
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the bufr file,
the
> > > > variables
> > > > > at
> > > > > >> >> hand
> > > > > >> >> > > are
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > COPO
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > (the
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > ozone
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> concentration),
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > and also TPHR.
TPHR is
> > > either
> > > > > -1
> > > > > >> or
> > > > > >> >> -8
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> depending on
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > whether
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> observed
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > ozone is a 1-hr
or 8-hr
> > > > average.
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In essence, we
have two
> > > > entities
> > > > > >> here
> > > > > >> >> > > >> depending
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> on
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > the
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> value of
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > TPHR:
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> the
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > 1-hr average
ozone and
> the
> > > > 8-hr
> > > > > >> >> average
> > > > > >> >> > > >> ozone.
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> But
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > they
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> have
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > same
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > value.
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the model we
also
> have
> > > two
> > > > > >> >> variables.
> > > > > >> >> > > >> Both
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> are
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > called
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > OZCON,
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> but
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > first one in the
file
> is a
> > > > 1-hr
> > > > > >> >> average
> > > > > >> >> > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > >> the
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > second
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > one
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> is
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 8-hr
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average.
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > The trick here is
> > verifying
> > > > 1-hr
> > > > > >> >> average
> > > > > >> >> > > >> with
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> 1-hr
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > average,
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> 8-hr
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average with 8-hr
> average.
> > > I
> > > > > >> think
> > > > > >> >> > there
> > > > > >> >> > > >> is a
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> multiplication
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> factor
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > in
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > there somewhere,
as the
> > obs
> > > > are
> > > > > in
> > > > > >> >> units
> > > > > >> >> > > of
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > mole/mole,
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > while
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > model
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> is
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > in parts per
billion
> > (ppb).
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I don't know if
you've
> > > spoken
> > > > > with
> > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > >> >> > AQM
> > > > > >> >> > > >> team
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> on
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > how
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> exactly
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> to do
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> this,
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > but I was hoping
to help
> > > them
> > > > > with
> > > > > >> >> this.
> > > > > >> >> > > If
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > you
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> can
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > advise
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> on
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> how
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > to
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > do
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > this, that would
be
> great!
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Thanks!
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Perry
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: verifying ozone
From: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
Time: Wed Mar 28 13:51:25 2018
Hi, John,
Super, thanks!
Perry
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 3:50 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> Perry,
>
> Yep, the bug was introduced in met-7.0... and stuck around for
> met-7.1_beta1. Howard added a fix to both the met trunk and the
> met-7.0_bugfix branch... and I posted the fixes to the MET website:
>
https://dtcenter.org/met/users/support/known_issues/METv7.0/index.php
>
> Julie is back in the office tomorrow and will patch the 7.0 build
and
> compile met-7.1_beta2 once I have it ready.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 12:22 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> >
> > Hi, Julie,
> >
> > Just an FYI - I just ran the 7.0 version of MET and it also failed
with
> the
> > same error, interestingly. But others did not report a problem
like this
> > in 7.0? Weird.
> >
> > Perry
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Julie Prestopnik via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Perry.
> > >
> > > I can reproduce the problem on both tide and our local machine.
It
> looks
> > > like an issue with the logic in when writing to the NetCDF
output file.
> > > One of our software developers in working on the problem. We
will let
> > you
> > > know when it is resolved.
> > >
> > > I will be out of the office this coming Monday - Wednesday, just
FYI,
> so
> > I
> > > may not be able to recompile on tide until next week.
> > >
> > > Regarding your question about the 7.1 beta, I think you are
probably
> the
> > > only one who knows about the 7.1 beta, but I don't think it
would be a
> > > problem if you mentioned it to your colleagues.
> > >
> > > Julie
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:20 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT
<
> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
>
> > > >
> > > > Hi, Julie,
> > > >
> > > > Yikes, it's all part a script, and it's not quite the usage.
But
> here
> > > are
> > > > the commands used from the output:
> > > >
> > > > pb2nc prepda.2018032200 prepda.nc.2018032200
> > > > /meso/save/Perry.Shafran/verif/nwtest/parm/PB2NCConfig -v
> > > > 3
> > > >
> > > > point_stat AWIP3D00.tm00 prepda.nc.2018032200
> > > > /meso/save/Perry.Shafran/verif/nwtest/parm/PointStatConfig_cv
-v 3
> > > >
> > > > You can run these if you go to the directory
> > > > /stmpp2/Perry.Shafran/tmpnwtest/verf_gridtobs_nam_00/00.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > BTW - am I the only one who knows about the 7.1 beta? In case
I'm
> not
> > > > supposed to bring it up among my colleagues?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > Perry
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Julie Prestopnik via RT <
> > > > met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Perry. My apologies for the delay in responding. I was
out of
> > the
> > > > > office.
> > > > > I have copied over your script and would like to run it to
see if I
> > can
> > > > > reproduce the error. I see the usage is:
> > > > >
> > > > > verf_gridtobs.sh $model $vday $vcyc
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you please send me the exact command line you are
running so
> > that I
> > > > can
> > > > > try to reproduce the error? Or, to simply things you could
send me
> a
> > > > single
> > > > > command line for pb2nc and point_stat so that I can run
that. The
> > > latter
> > > > > option would be preferable in case my environment isn't set
up as
> > yours
> > > > is
> > > > > with all necessary items.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > >
> > > > > Julie
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 2:28 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via
RT <
> > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi there,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am trying out the new 7.1 beta, and I got this error in
both
> > pb2nc
> > > > and
> > > > > > point_stat (except for point_stat replace the 146 in the
error
> with
> > > > 80):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > terminate called after throwing an instance of
> > > > > > 'netCDF::exceptions::NcBadId'
> > > > > > what(): NetCDF: Not a valid ID
> > > > > > file: ncVar.cpp line:146
> > > > > > /meso/save/Perry.Shafran/verif/nwtest/ush/verf_
> > > gridtobs_fits.sh[143]:
> > > > .:
> > > > > > line 217:
> > > > > > 41145: Abort(coredump)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any idea what the issue is here?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Perry
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Perry Shafran - NOAA
Affiliate <
> > > > > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi, Julie,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Perry
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 2:50 PM, Julie Prestopnik via RT
<
> > > > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Hi Perry.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> met-7.1_beta1 is now installed on tide. You can access
it by
> > > > running
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> following:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> module use
/global/noscrub/Julie.Prestopnik/modulefiles
> > > > > > >> module load met/7.1_beta1
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Please let me know if you have any questions or
encounter any
> > > > > problems.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > >> Julie
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 3:41 PM, John Halley Gotway <
> > > > johnhg at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > Perry and Julie,
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > I just created a met-7.1_beta1 release to enable
Perry to do
> > the
> > > > > > testing
> > > > > > >> > he needs.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > I posted the tarball to the MET website:
> > > > > > >> >
www.dtcenter.org/met/users/downloads/MET_releases/met-7.
> > > > > > >> > 1_beta1.20180316.tar.gz
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Perry, I assume it'd be most convenient for you to
have this
> > > > > available
> > > > > > >> on
> > > > > > >> > WCOSS for testing? If not, please let us know where.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Julie, assuming Perry wants it on the dev side of
WCOSS, can
> > you
> > > > > > please
> > > > > > >> > install it in your personal area, and tell Perry how
he can
> > > access
> > > > > it?
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Here's the very short list of changes included in
> > met-7.1_beta1
> > > > > (taken
> > > > > > >> > from the top-level README file):
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Version 7.1 BETA 1 Release Notes:
> > > > > > >> > --------------------------------
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > - Make logic for finding matching UGRD/VGRD
verification
> tasks
> > > > more
> > > > > > >> robust
> > > > > > >> > in
> > > > > > >> > Point-Stat and Grid-Stat.
> > > > > > >> > - Fix PB2NC's computation of valid time for AIRNOW
> > observations.
> > > > > > >> > - Minor bugfix for Series-Analysis when computing
min/max
> > timing
> > > > > info
> > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > >> > series with some missing input files.
> > > > > > >> > - Enable vld_thresh = 0 in Ensemble-Stat and
> Series-Analysis.
> > > > > > >> > - Update pntnc2ascii.R Rscript to handle obs_var
variable.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > > > >> > John
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 6:46 AM,
perry.shafran at noaa.gov via
> > RT
> > > <
> > > > > > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > >
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> Hi, John,
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> At this point my main concern is the ability to run
MET and
> > get
> > > > > good
> > > > > > >> MET
> > > > > > >> >> output on some of the air quality items. Then once
that's
> > > done,
> > > > > > worry
> > > > > > >> >> later about METViewer concerns. I do think we'll
want to
> > > > > eventually
> > > > > > >> >> compare VSDB vs MET output using METViewer, but that
seems
> to
> > > be
> > > > a
> > > > > > down
> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > >> >> road issue (though not too far down the road, so if
there
> is
> > a
> > > > > > >> METViewer
> > > > > > >> >> update coming up, put this in it).
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> Thanks!
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> Perry
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 5:31 PM, John Halley Gotway
via RT
> <
> > > > > > >> >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> > Perry,
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > On Monday, we decided that I should do the first
(and
> very
> > > > early)
> > > > > > >> beta
> > > > > > >> >> > release of met-7.1 to get this feature to you for
> testing.
> > > But
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > >> >> > version really shouldn't be used for anything
other than
> > > > testing.
> > > > > > >> Since
> > > > > > >> >> > this is a beta version for 7.1, my inclination
would be
> to
> > > > > > increment
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> >> > version number of the output now... to 7.1. The
only
> > > downside
> > > > is
> > > > > > >> that
> > > > > > >> >> it
> > > > > > >> >> > won't be possible to load 7.1 output in METViewer.
The
> > > loader
> > > > > will
> > > > > > >> >> error
> > > > > > >> >> > out and say that it doesn't know anything about
version
> > 7.1.
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > If you need to be able to load this output into
> METViewer,
> > we
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > >> >> keep
> > > > > > >> >> > the version number back at 7.0... but I'm really
worried
> > > about
> > > > > > >> >> version-itis
> > > > > > >> >> > here. I don't want to create a confusing mess of
output.
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > Any thoughts?
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > Thanks,
> > > > > > >> >> > John
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:57 AM,
perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > via
> > > > RT
> > > > > <
> > > > > > >> >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Tic
> > > > ket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > Hi, John,
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > I'm not sure I caught whether you have something
for me
> > to
> > > > test
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > >> >> not.
> > > > > > >> >> > I
> > > > > > >> >> > > think you were asking how to deliver these
updates for
> > > ozone
> > > > > so I
> > > > > > >> >> guess
> > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > > >> >> > > need to deliver first before I can test
anything.
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > Thanks!
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > Perry
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Perry Shafran -
NOAA
> > > > Affiliate
> > > > > <
> > > > > > >> >> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > Hi, John,
> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > Super, thanks! Let me know if there are any
aspects
> of
> > > it
> > > > > that
> > > > > > >> need
> > > > > > >> >> > > > clarification.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > Perry
> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:48 PM, John Halley
Gotway
> via
> > > RT <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> Perry,
> > > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> Yes, I received it. Thanks for the info. I
wrote
> up
> > a
> > > > > > >> development
> > > > > > >> >> > > ticket
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> in JiRA to handle this and Howard Soh is
taking a
> look
> > > at
> > > > > it.
> > > > > > >> I'll
> > > > > > >> >> > let
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> you
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> know when we have an update for you.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> John
> > > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:31 PM,
> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > via
> > > > > > RT <
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Hi, John,
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > I was just wondering if you got this
message
> > regarding
> > > > the
> > > > > > >> DHR in
> > > > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> ozone
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > airnow file. I hadn't received any
> acknowledgement
> > of
> > > > it.
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > >> >> think
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> that if
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > we are going to read this data correctly
for
> > > > verification,
> > > > > > >> we'll
> > > > > > >> >> > have
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> to be
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > aware of this and use the DHR to add DHR to
the
> > file's
> > > > > > >> timestamp
> > > > > > >> >> in
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> order
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > to get the right ob at the right time.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Thanks!
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Perry
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Perry
Shafran -
> > NOAA
> > > > > > >> Affiliate <
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > Hi, John,
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > For ozone (and for PM likely as well),
the DHR
> > will
> > > > tell
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > >> >> > > time
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> of
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > the observation. The DHR ranges from -11
to 12
> in
> > > > each
> > > > > > >> file,
> > > > > > >> >> so
> > > > > > >> >> > if
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> you
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > have an observation with DHR of -10, for
> example,
> > > that
> > > > > > >> >> > observations
> > > > > > >> >> > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > valid at 02Z. I guess I should have done
better
> > to
> > > > note
> > > > > > >> this
> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > previously, but you will need this
additional
> > > > > information
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > >> >> order
> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> get
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > the valid time of the observation. My
apologies
> > for
> > > > not
> > > > > > >> >> realizing
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> this
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > sooner (like before 7.0 was released).
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > The 00Z valid time (as in your example),
I just
> > > > > realized,
> > > > > > >> is a
> > > > > > >> >> > > special
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > case. Since the DHR ranges from -11 to
12, that
> > > means
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> >> > > valid
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > times
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > in the file range from 01Z to 00Z the
next day.
> > > > That's
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> reason
> > > > > > >> >> > > for
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > this
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > - it is indeed the 2017080912
<(201)%20708-0912>
> > > > <(201)%20708-0912>
> > > > > > >> <(201)%20708-0912>
> > > > > > >> >> <(201)%20708-0912> file but this
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> particular
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > valid time is 2017081000 <(201)%20708-
1000>
> > > > <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > >> >> <(201)%20708-1000> because DHR is 12 in
> > > > > > >> >> > > this
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > case. So that makes it extra special fun
for
> > > > verifying
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> >> > 00Z
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> valid
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > time, since we will have to go to the
previous
> > day's
> > > > obs
> > > > > > >> file
> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> verify
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > that. Every other hour of the day, you
won't
> see
> > > this
> > > > > > >> >> mismatch.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > Perry
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:59 AM, John
Halley
> > Gotway
> > > > via
> > > > > > RT <
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> Perry,
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> Yes, I see that all the AWIP* GRIB2
files you
> > sent
> > > me
> > > > > are
> > > > > > >> >> valid
> > > > > > >> >> > at
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> 2017081000.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> However, the point observations in the
prepda.
> > > > > 2017081000
> > > > > > >> are
> > > > > > >> >> > valid
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> at
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> 20170809_120000. Or at least that's
what the
> > > output
> > > > of
> > > > > > >> PB2NC
> > > > > > >> >> > tells
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> me!
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> The timestamps of the data contained in
prepda.
> > > > > > 2017081000
> > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> 12-hours
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> earlier than the timestamp of that file
> > indicates.
> > > > > > Here's
> > > > > > >> a
> > > > > > >> >> log
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> message
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> from PB2NC listing out the "center time"
for
> that
> > > > file:
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> DEBUG 1: Processing Bufr File:
prepda.
> > > 2017081000
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> DEBUG 2: Bufr Time Center:
> > 20170809_120000
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> Perhaps there's a problem in the naming
> > convention
> > > > for
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > >> >> > > "prepda"
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> file... or perhaps there's a good reason
for
> the
> > > > > 12-hour
> > > > > > >> >> > offset...
> > > > > > >> >> > > or
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> perhaps there's some problem in the MET
code
> and
> > > > we're
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > >> >> > reading
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> data
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> from that file correctly?
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> John
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:37 AM,
> > > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > via
> > > > > > >> >> RT <
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Tic
> > > > > > >> >> ket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > OK, thanks! So this is included in
the
> latest
> > > MET
> > > > > > >> release.
> > > > > > >> >> I
> > > > > > >> >> > > think
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> there
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > will definitely be other questions, if
I want
> > to
> > > be
> > > > > > able
> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > >> >> > > verify
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > each
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > hourly forecast of ozone with the
> observation.
> > > The
> > > > > DHR
> > > > > > >> >> tells
> > > > > > >> >> > us
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> which
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> hour
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > that we are looking for to verify.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > Perry
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:25 AM, John
Halley
> > > Gotway
> > > > > via
> > > > > > >> RT <
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > Hi Perry,
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > We just posted the met-7.0 release
> yesterday.
> > > > > Julie
> > > > > > >> >> > Prestopnik
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> is
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > actually
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > out at NCEP today, and she'll be the
one to
> > > > install
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> on
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> WCOSS. So
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> I'll
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > let her chime in to let us know when
she's
> > able
> > > > to
> > > > > do
> > > > > > >> >> that.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > Thanks,
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > John
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:27 AM,
> > > > > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > >> >> via
> > > > > > >> >> > RT
> > > > > > >> >> > > <
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > > > >> >> > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > I am able to start working on this
today.
> > Is
> > > > > this
> > > > > > >> >> > available
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> for
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > testing
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > now?
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Also I'm not entirely sure what
you mean
> in
> > > > that
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> obs
> > > > > > >> >> > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> the
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> model
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > don't match up well in time? In
the
> > example
> > > I
> > > > > sent
> > > > > > >> you,
> > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> have
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > a
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> set
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > of
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > observations and all the forecast
files
> > that
> > > > > verify
> > > > > > >> at
> > > > > > >> >> that
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> particular
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > time. Both the model and observed
bufr
> > file
> > > > have
> > > > > > >> >> 1-hourly
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> fields
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > (hourly
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > fields of 1-hr and hourly fields
of 8-hr
> > > ozone
> > > > -
> > > > > > >> kind of
> > > > > > >> >> > hard
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> to
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > imagine
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > that, but they are just values).
So we
> > will
> > > > also
> > > > > > >> need a
> > > > > > >> >> > way
> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> match
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > up
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > the observed field with the
modeled field
> > at
> > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > corresponding
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > time.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > (For
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > example, matching the 3-hr
forecast from
> > the
> > > > 12Z
> > > > > > >> model
> > > > > > >> >> run
> > > > > > >> >> > > with
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> 15Z
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > observed field.)
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > I think this is best achieved with
a
> > > different
> > > > > > >> >> execution of
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> point_stat
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > for
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > each individual hour, because
that's how
> I
> > do
> > > > > > >> gridtobs
> > > > > > >> >> > > anyway.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > What are your thoughts on the
above?
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Perry
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:32 PM,
John
> Halley
> > > > > Gotway
> > > > > > >> via
> > > > > > >> >> RT <
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Hi Perry,
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Howard Soh updated the logic in
the
> PB2NC
> > > to
> > > > > > handle
> > > > > > >> >> the 1
> > > > > > >> >> > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> 8-hour
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > COPO
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > observations in the way we
discussed.
> I
> > > > wanted
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> let
> > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> know
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> that
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > I
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > tested it this afternoon and got
some
> > good
> > > > > > results.
> > > > > > >> >> The
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> sample
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > fcst/obs
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > data you sent doesn't line up
well in
> > time,
> > > > so
> > > > > I
> > > > > > >> just
> > > > > > >> >> > set a
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> very
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > large
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > matching time window in Point-
Stat.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Here's the relevant pieces of
the
> > > Point-Stat
> > > > > > config
> > > > > > >> >> file:
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > fcst = {
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > field = [
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "OZCON"; level =
"A01";
> },
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "OZCON"; level =
"A08";
> }
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > ];
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > }
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > obs = {
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > message_type = [ "AIRNOW"
];
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > convert(x) = x*10^9;
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > field = [
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level =
"A01";
> },
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level =
"A08"; }
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > ];
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > }
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > And I'm just *guessing* at that
> > conversion
> > > > > > factor.
> > > > > > >> >> The
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > resulting
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > numbers
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > look about right, but its up to
you to
> > > > confirm.
> > > > > > >> Using
> > > > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > sample
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > data
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > you
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > sent me, this results in a mean
error
> > value
> > > > of
> > > > > > >> 12.64
> > > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> 15.48
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > for
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > 1
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > and 8-hour accums, respectively.
But
> the
> > > > > > fcst/obs
> > > > > > >> >> data
> > > > > > >> >> > are
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> actually
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > offset
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > by 12 hours so these numbers
don't mean
> > > much,
> > > > > > other
> > > > > > >> >> than
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > demonstrating
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > there isn't a huge order of
magnitude
> > > > > difference.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > John
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:06 PM,
John
> > > Halley
> > > > > > >> Gotway <
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> johnhg at ucar.edu
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > Perry,
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > I think I prefer option 2 as
well.
> > I'll
> > > > ask
> > > > > > >> Howard
> > > > > > >> >> > Soh,
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> one
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > of
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> the
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > developers here, to add
specific
> logic
> > > for
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> AIRNOW
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> message
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> type,
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > where...
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > - level = absolute value of
TPHR
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > - qc flag = QCIND
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > John
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:00
PM,
> > > > > > >> >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> via
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > RT
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> <
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Hi, John,
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> What would be easier in
comparing to
> > the
> > > > > model
> > > > > > >> >> output,
> > > > > > >> >> > > do
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> you
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > think?
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > I
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> think that having it as some
sort of
> > > > > > >> "accumulation
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> variable"
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> (the
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > 2nd
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> option) would work.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> In the model, though, they
are not
> > > listed
> > > > as
> > > > > > >> >> either 1
> > > > > > >> >> > or
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> 8 hr
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> accumulations/averages. They
are
> > listed
> > > > as
> > > > > > >> either,
> > > > > > >> >> > for
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > example
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > for
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > 24
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> hr forecast, either "23-24 hr
ave
> > fcst"
> > > or
> > > > > > >> "16-24
> > > > > > >> >> hr
> > > > > > >> >> > ave
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > fcst".
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > Would
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > be
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> easier if it said "1 hr ave
fcst" or
> > "8
> > > hr
> > > > > ave
> > > > > > >> >> fcst",
> > > > > > >> >> > > but
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> again,
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > that's
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> not
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> what we got. So I'm guessing
that
> > might
> > > > > make
> > > > > > >> it a
> > > > > > >> >> > > little
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > more
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > challenging
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> for the model to script up?
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Perry
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:50
PM,
> John
> > > > Halley
> > > > > > >> Gotway
> > > > > > >> >> > via
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> RT <
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Perry,
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > I wanted to check how point
> > > observations
> > > > > of
> > > > > > >> >> precip
> > > > > > >> >> > are
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> stored in
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> PrepBUFR
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > so I ran PB2NC on an old
NDAS file
> > > using
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> -index
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> option.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > Here's
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> what I
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > found:
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP06: TOTAL
> > > > PRECIPITATION
> > > > > > >> PAST 6
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > HOURS
> > types:
> > > > > ADPSFC
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP24: TOTAL
> > > > PRECIPITATION
> > > > > > >> PAST 24
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > HOURS
> types:
> > > > > ADPSFC
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > So basically, the
accumulation
> > > interval
> > > > > > >> exists in
> > > > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > observation
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> variable
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > name. Following that
paradigm, if
> > the
> > > > > > AIRNOW
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> observations
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> were
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > stored
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > using COPO01 and COPO08,
then MET
> > > would
> > > > > > >> already
> > > > > > >> >> be
> > > > > > >> >> > > able
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> to
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > handle
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > them
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > already. But I suppose
we're
> likely
> > > > stuck
> > > > > > >> with
> > > > > > >> >> what
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> we've
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> got.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > I can see 2 ways we could
handle
> > this
> > > > for
> > > > > > >> >> processing
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> AIRNOW
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > message
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > types...
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Option 1: Follow the precip
> example
> > > and
> > > > > > modify
> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> observation
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > variable
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > names by appending the TPHR
value.
> > > > > Instead
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> >> COPO,
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> we'd
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> have
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> observations
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > named COPO01 and COPO08.
And if
> we
> > > ever
> > > > > see
> > > > > > >> >> TPHR =
> > > > > > >> >> > > -24,
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> that'd
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > produce
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> a
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > COPO24 variable name.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Option 2: We could keep the
COPO
> > > > variable
> > > > > > name
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> unchanged,
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > instead
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> set
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the "level" value for these
> > > observations
> > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> indicate
> > > > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > accumulation
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > interval. If you look at
the
> > ascii2nc
> > > > > usage
> > > > > > >> >> > > statement,
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> you'll
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > see
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > following:
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > "Level" is the pressure
level
> > (hPa)
> > > > or
> > > > > > >> >> > accumulation
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> interval
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> (HH[MMSS]).
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > So we could use the value
of TPHR
> to
> > > > > define
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> >> > level
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> as an
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> "accumulation"
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > interval.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Either option could be made
to
> work
> > in
> > > > > MET.
> > > > > > >> Does
> > > > > > >> >> > one
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> make
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> more
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > sense
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > you than the other?
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > While we're doing this, I
assume
> we
> > > > should
> > > > > > >> also
> > > > > > >> >> > using
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> the
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> QCIND
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > value
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > populate the obs_qty (i.e.
quality
> > > > > control)
> > > > > > >> >> setting?
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > John
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at
1:34 PM,
> > John
> > > > > Halley
> > > > > > >> >> Gotway
> > > > > > >> >> > <
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > johnhg at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Perry,
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Until users dive into the
> details,
> > > we
> > > > > > won't
> > > > > > >> >> know
> > > > > > >> >> > > about
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> these
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > sorts
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > of
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> -1
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > vs -8 issues. But once
we
> > identify
> > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > requirements,
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> we
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> can
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > update
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > software to handle them.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > So please keep the
feedback
> > coming.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks,
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > John
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at
1:31 PM,
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> via
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > RT
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > <
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> <URL:
> > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Hi, John,
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> OK, thanks! I thought
the
> latest
> > > > > version
> > > > > > >> of
> > > > > > >> >> MET
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> that we
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> were
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > using
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> was
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> configured for the air
quality
> > > > > > >> applications?
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Perry
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at
3:26
> PM,
> > > John
> > > > > > >> Halley
> > > > > > >> >> > Gotway
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> via
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> RT <
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu>
wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Perry,
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > I just grabbed them
and ran
> the
> > > > > > forecast
> > > > > > >> >> data
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> through
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> the
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> plot_data_plane
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > utility. Looks like
> specifying
> > > the
> > > > > > level
> > > > > > >> >> as an
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > accumulation
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > type
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> does
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> the
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > trick:
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-
6.1/bin/plot_
> > > > > data_plane
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> AWIP3D18.tm00
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > OZCON_1hr.ps
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON";
level="A1";'
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-
6.1/bin/plot_
> > > > > data_plane
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> AWIP3D18.tm00
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > OZCON_8hr.ps
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON";
level="A8";'
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > The resulting images
are
> > > attached.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Next, I ran pb2nc
using the
> > > -index
> > > > > > >> option to
> > > > > > >> >> > see
> > > > > > >> >> > > a
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > description
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > of
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > prepda contents:
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > /usr/local/met-
6.1/bin/pb2nc
> > > > prepda.
> > > > > > >> >> 2017081000 <(201)%20708-1000> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > prepda.2017081000.nc
> > > > > > >> >> > > /usr/local/met-6.1/share/met/
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
config/PB2NCConfig_default
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > -index -log
pb2nc_index.log
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Header
variables:
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SID:
STATION
> > > > > > >> IDENTIFICATION
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: XOB:
> LONGITUDE
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: YOB:
> LATITUDE
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: DHR:
> > OBSERVATION
> > > > > TIME
> > > > > > >> MINUS
> > > > > > >> >> > > CYCLE
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > TIME
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ELV:
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYP:
> PREPBUFR
> > > > REPORT
> > > > > > >> TYPE
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: T29:
DATA
> DUMP
> > > > > REPORT
> > > > > > >> TYPE
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: ITP:
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
Observation
> > > variables:
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: COPO:
> > > CONCENTRATION
> > > > > OF
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > POLLUTANT
> > > > > > >> >> types:
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> AIRNOW
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TYPO:
TYPE OF
> > > > > POLLUTANT
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: CAT:
> PREPBUFR
> > > DATA
> > > > > > LEVEL
> > > > > > >> >> > > CATEGORY
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: PROCN:
PROCESS
> > > > NUMBER
> > > > > > FOR
> > > > > > >> >> THIS
> > > > > > >> >> > MPI
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> RUN
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > (OBTAINED
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> FROM
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > SCRIPT)
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: SQN:
REPORT
> > > > SEQUENCE
> > > > > > >> NUMBER
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: QCIND:
QUALITY
> > > > CONTROL
> > > > > > >> >> > INDICATION
> > > > > > >> >> > > OF
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > FOLLOWING
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DATA
types:
> AIRNOW
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TSIG:
TIME
> > > > > SIGNIFICANCE
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: RPT:
> REPORTED
> > > > > > >> OBSERVATION
> > > > > > >> >> TIME
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: TPHR:
TIME
> > PERIOD
> > > > OR
> > > > > > >> >> > DISPLACEMENT
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > I see the COPO and
TPHR
> > > > observations
> > > > > > >> listed.
> > > > > > >> >> > > We'll
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> need to
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > update
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > PB2NC code to handle
the
> logic
> > > > you've
> > > > > > >> >> > described.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > One option for
specifying
> the 1
> > > vs
> > > > 8
> > > > > > hour
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> difference
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> would
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > be
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> mimic
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> how
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > different precip
accumulation
> > > > > intervals
> > > > > > >> are
> > > > > > >> >> > > stored
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> for
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > gauges.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> I'll
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> look
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > more into how we might
do
> that.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Thanks,
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > John
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018
at 12:17
> > PM,
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > via
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > RT
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > <
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu>
wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > <URL:
> > > > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Hi, John,
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > I was just wondering
if you
> > > have
> > > > > > found
> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> received
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> these
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > files.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Thanks!
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Perry
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018
at
> 10:30
> > > AM,
> > > > > > Perry
> > > > > > >> >> > > Shafran -
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > NOAA
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Affiliate
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
perry.shafran at noaa.gov>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > I just transferred
some
> > model
> > > > > files
> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > >> >> an
> > > > > > >> >> > ob
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> file
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> here
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > on
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Theia.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> All
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > these model files
verify
> at
> > > the
> > > > > ob
> > > > > > >> time
> > > > > > >> >> > here.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Have
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> a
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > look:
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > /scratch4/NCEPDEV/meso/save/
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Perry.Shafran/for_john
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Perry
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > On Tue, Feb 20,
2018 at
> > 6:55
> > > > PM,
> > > > > > John
> > > > > > >> >> > Halley
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Gotway
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> via
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > RT
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > <
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu>
> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Hi Perry,
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Can you please
point me
> > to a
> > > > > model
> > > > > > >> >> output
> > > > > > >> >> > > file
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > containing
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > OZCON
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> fields?
Presumably,
> these
> > > are
> > > > > in
> > > > > > >> GRIB1
> > > > > > >> >> > or 2
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> format,
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > hopefully,
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> there's
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> some flag in the
header
> > that
> > > > > will
> > > > > > >> >> enable
> > > > > > >> >> > us
> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > distinguish
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > between
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> the
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> GRIB
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> records
containing 1
> and 8
> > > > hour
> > > > > > >> >> averages.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> As for the point
> > > > observations, I
> > > > > > >> >> suspect
> > > > > > >> >> > > that
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > we'll
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > need
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> add
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> logic
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> PB2NC to
distinguish
> > between
> > > > > the 1
> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > >> >> 8
> > > > > > >> >> > > hour
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > COPO
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > concentrations.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Perhaps
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> we could update
PB2NC to
> > use
> > > > the
> > > > > > >> TPHR
> > > > > > >> >> > values
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> to
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > renamed
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > COPO
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> to
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> COPO_1
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> COPO_8?
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Are these COPO
point
> > > > > observations
> > > > > > >> >> present
> > > > > > >> >> > in
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> NDAS
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> or
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > GDAS
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > PrepBUFR
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > files?
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> John
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> On Tue, Feb 20,
2018 at
> > 1:40
> > > > PM,
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > via
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> RT <
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
met_help at ucar.edu>
> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Tue Feb 20
13:40:01
> > 2018:
> > > > > > Request
> > > > > > >> >> 84134
> > > > > > >> >> > > was
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > acted
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > upon.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Transaction:
Ticket
> > > created
> > > > by
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Queue:
met_help
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Subject:
> verifying
> > > > ozone
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Owner:
Nobody
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Requestors:
> > > > > > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Status:
new
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Ticket <URL:
> > > > > > >> >> > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Hi, everyone,
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I am helping
the AQM
> > group
> > > > > > verify
> > > > > > >> >> ozone
> > > > > > >> >> > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> I
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> need
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > some
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> assistance
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > in
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> using
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > PB2NC (and then
later
> > > > > > point_stat,
> > > > > > >> but
> > > > > > >> >> > > let's
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > start
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > with
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > PB2NC). I
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > need
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> to
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > be able to read
in two
> > > > > > quantities
> > > > > > >> >> from
> > > > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> prepbufr
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > file
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > then
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> combine
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > that to be able
to
> > compare
> > > > to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> two
> > > > > > >> >> > > model
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> items.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the bufr
file, the
> > > > > variables
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > >> >> hand
> > > > > > >> >> > > are
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > COPO
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > (the
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > ozone
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> concentration),
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > and also TPHR.
TPHR
> is
> > > > either
> > > > > > -1
> > > > > > >> or
> > > > > > >> >> -8
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> depending on
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > whether
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> observed
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > ozone is a 1-hr
or
> 8-hr
> > > > > average.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In essence, we
have
> two
> > > > > entities
> > > > > > >> here
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> depending
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> on
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> value of
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > TPHR:
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> the
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > 1-hr average
ozone and
> > the
> > > > > 8-hr
> > > > > > >> >> average
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> ozone.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> But
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > they
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> have
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > same
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > value.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the model we
also
> > have
> > > > two
> > > > > > >> >> variables.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> Both
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> are
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > called
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > OZCON,
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> but
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > first one in
the file
> > is a
> > > > > 1-hr
> > > > > > >> >> average
> > > > > > >> >> > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> the
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > second
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > one
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> is
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 8-hr
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > The trick here
is
> > > verifying
> > > > > 1-hr
> > > > > > >> >> average
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> with
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> 1-hr
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > average,
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> and
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> 8-hr
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average with 8-
hr
> > average.
> > > > I
> > > > > > >> think
> > > > > > >> >> > there
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> is a
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> multiplication
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> factor
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > in
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > there
somewhere, as
> the
> > > obs
> > > > > are
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > >> >> units
> > > > > > >> >> > > of
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > mole/mole,
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > while
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > model
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> is
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > in parts per
billion
> > > (ppb).
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I don't know if
you've
> > > > spoken
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > >> >> > AQM
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> team
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> on
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > how
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> exactly
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> to do
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> this,
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > but I was
hoping to
> help
> > > > them
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> >> this.
> > > > > > >> >> > > If
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > you
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> can
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > advise
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> on
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> how
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > do
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > this, that
would be
> > great!
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Thanks!
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Perry
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: verifying ozone
From: John Halley Gotway
Time: Wed Mar 28 15:08:24 2018
Perry,
This is great. Thanks for sending the sample data. I pulled it over
and
ran both an ANOWPM (aqm.t12z.anowpm.pb.tm00) and AIRNOW
(aqm.t12z.prepbufr.tm00) file through PB2NC. Adding ANOWPM was
literally a
1-line change in PB2NC.
Next, I ran pb2nc on two sample files, as shown below (I attached the
config file I used, but I'm just requesting "COPO" and "COPOPM"):
pb2nc \
./airnow/hourly.20180325/aqm.t12z.anowpm.pb.tm00 \
./airnow/hourly.20180325/aqm.t12z.anowpm.pb.tm00.nc \
PB2NCConfig -log run_pb2nc.log
pb2nc \
airnow/hourly.20180325/aqm.t12z.prepbufr.tm00 \
airnow/hourly.20180325/aqm.t12z.prepbufr.tm00.nc \
PB2NCConfig -log run_pb2nc.log
Next, I dumped the resulting NetCDF files to ascii like this:
Rscript met/scripts/Rscripts/pntnc2ascii.R airnow/hourly.20180325/
aqm.t12z.prepbufr.tm00.nc > aqm.t12z.prepbufr.tm00.txt
Rscriptmet/scripts/Rscripts/pntnc2ascii.R ./airnow/hourly.20180325/
aqm.t12z.anowpm.pb.tm00.nc > aqm.t12z.anowpm.pb.tm00.txt
And I've attached the resulting text files.
I *think* they look good but thought you should take a look at the
data to
be sure. Note that the 8th column is the "accumulation interval" or
in our
case, averaging interval, in seconds. So 3600 means 1 hour and 28800
means
8 hours.
Please look at the 3rd column, which is the valid time in
YYYYMMDD_HHMMSS
format. Notice that the valid time remains constant for all these
observations. Is that correct? Is that what you'd expect?
I'm going to be out of the office Thurs/Fri during my kid's spring
break.
I don't want to slow you down, so I think now is a good time to do the
met-7.1_beta2 release.
That way Julie can install it on WCOSS while she's patching met-7.0.
So I'll do that this afternoon before heading out of the office.
Thanks,
John
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 1:51 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
>
> Hi, John,
>
> Super, thanks!
>
> Perry
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 3:50 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> > Perry,
> >
> > Yep, the bug was introduced in met-7.0... and stuck around for
> > met-7.1_beta1. Howard added a fix to both the met trunk and the
> > met-7.0_bugfix branch... and I posted the fixes to the MET
website:
> >
https://dtcenter.org/met/users/support/known_issues/METv7.0/index.php
> >
> > Julie is back in the office tomorrow and will patch the 7.0 build
and
> > compile met-7.1_beta2 once I have it ready.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > John
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 12:22 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> > >
> > > Hi, Julie,
> > >
> > > Just an FYI - I just ran the 7.0 version of MET and it also
failed with
> > the
> > > same error, interestingly. But others did not report a problem
like
> this
> > > in 7.0? Weird.
> > >
> > > Perry
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Julie Prestopnik via RT <
> > > met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Perry.
> > > >
> > > > I can reproduce the problem on both tide and our local
machine. It
> > looks
> > > > like an issue with the logic in when writing to the NetCDF
output
> file.
> > > > One of our software developers in working on the problem. We
will
> let
> > > you
> > > > know when it is resolved.
> > > >
> > > > I will be out of the office this coming Monday - Wednesday,
just FYI,
> > so
> > > I
> > > > may not be able to recompile on tide until next week.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding your question about the 7.1 beta, I think you are
probably
> > the
> > > > only one who knows about the 7.1 beta, but I don't think it
would be
> a
> > > > problem if you mentioned it to your colleagues.
> > > >
> > > > Julie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:20 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via
RT <
> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi, Julie,
> > > > >
> > > > > Yikes, it's all part a script, and it's not quite the usage.
But
> > here
> > > > are
> > > > > the commands used from the output:
> > > > >
> > > > > pb2nc prepda.2018032200 prepda.nc.2018032200
> > > > > /meso/save/Perry.Shafran/verif/nwtest/parm/PB2NCConfig -v
> > > > > 3
> > > > >
> > > > > point_stat AWIP3D00.tm00 prepda.nc.2018032200
> > > > >
/meso/save/Perry.Shafran/verif/nwtest/parm/PointStatConfig_cv -v 3
> > > > >
> > > > > You can run these if you go to the directory
> > > > > /stmpp2/Perry.Shafran/tmpnwtest/verf_gridtobs_nam_00/00.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > >
> > > > > BTW - am I the only one who knows about the 7.1 beta? In
case I'm
> > not
> > > > > supposed to bring it up among my colleagues?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > >
> > > > > Perry
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Julie Prestopnik via RT <
> > > > > met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Perry. My apologies for the delay in responding. I
was out
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > office.
> > > > > > I have copied over your script and would like to run it to
see
> if I
> > > can
> > > > > > reproduce the error. I see the usage is:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > verf_gridtobs.sh $model $vday $vcyc
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can you please send me the exact command line you are
running so
> > > that I
> > > > > can
> > > > > > try to reproduce the error? Or, to simply things you could
send
> me
> > a
> > > > > single
> > > > > > command line for pb2nc and point_stat so that I can run
that.
> The
> > > > latter
> > > > > > option would be preferable in case my environment isn't
set up as
> > > yours
> > > > > is
> > > > > > with all necessary items.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Julie
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 2:28 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov
via RT <
> > > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi there,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am trying out the new 7.1 beta, and I got this error
in both
> > > pb2nc
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > point_stat (except for point_stat replace the 146 in the
error
> > with
> > > > > 80):
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > terminate called after throwing an instance of
> > > > > > > 'netCDF::exceptions::NcBadId'
> > > > > > > what(): NetCDF: Not a valid ID
> > > > > > > file: ncVar.cpp line:146
> > > > > > > /meso/save/Perry.Shafran/verif/nwtest/ush/verf_
> > > > gridtobs_fits.sh[143]:
> > > > > .:
> > > > > > > line 217:
> > > > > > > 41145: Abort(coredump)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Any idea what the issue is here?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Perry
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Perry Shafran - NOAA
> Affiliate <
> > > > > > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi, Julie,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Perry
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 2:50 PM, Julie Prestopnik via
RT <
> > > > > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> Hi Perry.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> met-7.1_beta1 is now installed on tide. You can
access it
> by
> > > > > running
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> following:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> module use
/global/noscrub/Julie.Prestopnik/modulefiles
> > > > > > > >> module load met/7.1_beta1
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Please let me know if you have any questions or
encounter
> any
> > > > > > problems.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > > >> Julie
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 3:41 PM, John Halley Gotway <
> > > > > johnhg at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > Perry and Julie,
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > I just created a met-7.1_beta1 release to enable
Perry to
> do
> > > the
> > > > > > > testing
> > > > > > > >> > he needs.
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > I posted the tarball to the MET website:
> > > > > > > >> > www.dtcenter.org/met/users/
> downloads/MET_releases/met-7.
> > > > > > > >> > 1_beta1.20180316.tar.gz
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > Perry, I assume it'd be most convenient for you to
have
> this
> > > > > > available
> > > > > > > >> on
> > > > > > > >> > WCOSS for testing? If not, please let us know
where.
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > Julie, assuming Perry wants it on the dev side of
WCOSS,
> can
> > > you
> > > > > > > please
> > > > > > > >> > install it in your personal area, and tell Perry
how he
> can
> > > > access
> > > > > > it?
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > Here's the very short list of changes included in
> > > met-7.1_beta1
> > > > > > (taken
> > > > > > > >> > from the top-level README file):
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > Version 7.1 BETA 1 Release Notes:
> > > > > > > >> > --------------------------------
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > - Make logic for finding matching UGRD/VGRD
verification
> > tasks
> > > > > more
> > > > > > > >> robust
> > > > > > > >> > in
> > > > > > > >> > Point-Stat and Grid-Stat.
> > > > > > > >> > - Fix PB2NC's computation of valid time for AIRNOW
> > > observations.
> > > > > > > >> > - Minor bugfix for Series-Analysis when computing
min/max
> > > timing
> > > > > > info
> > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > >> > series with some missing input files.
> > > > > > > >> > - Enable vld_thresh = 0 in Ensemble-Stat and
> > Series-Analysis.
> > > > > > > >> > - Update pntnc2ascii.R Rscript to handle obs_var
variable.
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > > > > >> > John
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 6:46 AM,
perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> via
> > > RT
> > > > <
> > > > > > > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> Hi, John,
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> At this point my main concern is the ability to
run MET
> and
> > > get
> > > > > > good
> > > > > > > >> MET
> > > > > > > >> >> output on some of the air quality items. Then
once
> that's
> > > > done,
> > > > > > > worry
> > > > > > > >> >> later about METViewer concerns. I do think we'll
want to
> > > > > > eventually
> > > > > > > >> >> compare VSDB vs MET output using METViewer, but
that
> seems
> > to
> > > > be
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > down
> > > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > >> >> road issue (though not too far down the road, so
if there
> > is
> > > a
> > > > > > > >> METViewer
> > > > > > > >> >> update coming up, put this in it).
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> Thanks!
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> Perry
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 5:31 PM, John Halley
Gotway via
> RT
> > <
> > > > > > > >> >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > Perry,
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > On Monday, we decided that I should do the first
(and
> > very
> > > > > early)
> > > > > > > >> beta
> > > > > > > >> >> > release of met-7.1 to get this feature to you
for
> > testing.
> > > > But
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > >> >> > version really shouldn't be used for anything
other
> than
> > > > > testing.
> > > > > > > >> Since
> > > > > > > >> >> > this is a beta version for 7.1, my inclination
would be
> > to
> > > > > > > increment
> > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> >> > version number of the output now... to 7.1. The
only
> > > > downside
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> that
> > > > > > > >> >> it
> > > > > > > >> >> > won't be possible to load 7.1 output in
METViewer. The
> > > > loader
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > >> >> error
> > > > > > > >> >> > out and say that it doesn't know anything about
version
> > > 7.1.
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > If you need to be able to load this output into
> > METViewer,
> > > we
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > >> >> keep
> > > > > > > >> >> > the version number back at 7.0... but I'm really
> worried
> > > > about
> > > > > > > >> >> version-itis
> > > > > > > >> >> > here. I don't want to create a confusing mess
of
> output.
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > Any thoughts?
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > Thanks,
> > > > > > > >> >> > John
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:57 AM,
> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > via
> > > > > RT
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > >> >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Tic
> > > > > ket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > Hi, John,
> > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > I'm not sure I caught whether you have
something for
> me
> > > to
> > > > > test
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > >> >> not.
> > > > > > > >> >> > I
> > > > > > > >> >> > > think you were asking how to deliver these
updates
> for
> > > > ozone
> > > > > > so I
> > > > > > > >> >> guess
> > > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > > > >> >> > > need to deliver first before I can test
anything.
> > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > Perry
> > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Perry Shafran
- NOAA
> > > > > Affiliate
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > >> >> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > > Hi, John,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > > Super, thanks! Let me know if there are any
> aspects
> > of
> > > > it
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > >> need
> > > > > > > >> >> > > > clarification.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > > Perry
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:48 PM, John Halley
Gotway
> > via
> > > > RT <
> > > > > > > >> >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> Perry,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> Yes, I received it. Thanks for the info.
I wrote
> > up
> > > a
> > > > > > > >> development
> > > > > > > >> >> > > ticket
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> in JiRA to handle this and Howard Soh is
taking a
> > look
> > > > at
> > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > >> I'll
> > > > > > > >> >> > let
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> you
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> know when we have an update for you.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> John
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:31 PM,
> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > via
> > > > > > > RT <
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > > > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Hi, John,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > I was just wondering if you got this
message
> > > regarding
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> DHR in
> > > > > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> ozone
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > airnow file. I hadn't received any
> > acknowledgement
> > > of
> > > > > it.
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > >> >> think
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> that if
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > we are going to read this data correctly
for
> > > > > verification,
> > > > > > > >> we'll
> > > > > > > >> >> > have
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> to be
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > aware of this and use the DHR to add DHR
to the
> > > file's
> > > > > > > >> timestamp
> > > > > > > >> >> in
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> order
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > to get the right ob at the right time.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Thanks!
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Perry
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Perry
Shafran -
> > > NOAA
> > > > > > > >> Affiliate <
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > Hi, John,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > For ozone (and for PM likely as well),
the DHR
> > > will
> > > > > tell
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > >> >> > > time
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> of
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > the observation. The DHR ranges from
-11 to
> 12
> > in
> > > > > each
> > > > > > > >> file,
> > > > > > > >> >> so
> > > > > > > >> >> > if
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> you
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > have an observation with DHR of -10,
for
> > example,
> > > > that
> > > > > > > >> >> > observations
> > > > > > > >> >> > > is
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > valid at 02Z. I guess I should have
done
> better
> > > to
> > > > > note
> > > > > > > >> this
> > > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > previously, but you will need this
additional
> > > > > > information
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > >> >> order
> > > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> get
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > the valid time of the observation. My
> apologies
> > > for
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > >> >> realizing
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> this
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > sooner (like before 7.0 was released).
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > The 00Z valid time (as in your
example), I
> just
> > > > > > realized,
> > > > > > > >> is a
> > > > > > > >> >> > > special
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > case. Since the DHR ranges from -11 to
12,
> that
> > > > means
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> >> > > valid
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > times
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > in the file range from 01Z to 00Z the
next
> day.
> > > > > That's
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> >> reason
> > > > > > > >> >> > > for
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > this
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > - it is indeed the 2017080912
> <(201)%20708-0912>
> > > > > <(201)%20708-0912>
> > > > > > > >> <(201)%20708-0912>
> > > > > > > >> >> <(201)%20708-0912> file but this
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> particular
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > valid time is 2017081000 <(201)%20708-
1000>
> > > > > <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > > >> >> <(201)%20708-1000> because DHR is 12 in
> > > > > > > >> >> > > this
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > case. So that makes it extra special
fun for
> > > > > verifying
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> >> > 00Z
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> valid
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > time, since we will have to go to the
previous
> > > day's
> > > > > obs
> > > > > > > >> file
> > > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> verify
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > that. Every other hour of the day, you
won't
> > see
> > > > this
> > > > > > > >> >> mismatch.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > Perry
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:59 AM, John
Halley
> > > Gotway
> > > > > via
> > > > > > > RT <
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> Perry,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> Yes, I see that all the AWIP* GRIB2
files you
> > > sent
> > > > me
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > >> >> valid
> > > > > > > >> >> > at
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> 2017081000.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> However, the point observations in the
> prepda.
> > > > > > 2017081000
> > > > > > > >> are
> > > > > > > >> >> > valid
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> at
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> 20170809_120000. Or at least that's
what the
> > > > output
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > >> PB2NC
> > > > > > > >> >> > tells
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> me!
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> The timestamps of the data contained
in
> prepda.
> > > > > > > 2017081000
> > > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> 12-hours
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> earlier than the timestamp of that
file
> > > indicates.
> > > > > > > Here's
> > > > > > > >> a
> > > > > > > >> >> log
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> message
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> from PB2NC listing out the "center
time" for
> > that
> > > > > file:
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> DEBUG 1: Processing Bufr File:
prepda.
> > > > 2017081000
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> DEBUG 2: Bufr Time Center:
> > > 20170809_120000
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> Perhaps there's a problem in the
naming
> > > convention
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > >> >> > > "prepda"
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> file... or perhaps there's a good
reason for
> > the
> > > > > > 12-hour
> > > > > > > >> >> > offset...
> > > > > > > >> >> > > or
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> perhaps there's some problem in the
MET code
> > and
> > > > > we're
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > >> >> > reading
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> data
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> from that file correctly?
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> John
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:37 AM,
> > > > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > > via
> > > > > > > >> >> RT <
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Tic
> > > > > > > >> >> ket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > OK, thanks! So this is included in
the
> > latest
> > > > MET
> > > > > > > >> release.
> > > > > > > >> >> I
> > > > > > > >> >> > > think
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> there
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > will definitely be other questions,
if I
> want
> > > to
> > > > be
> > > > > > > able
> > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > >> >> > > verify
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > each
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > hourly forecast of ozone with the
> > observation.
> > > > The
> > > > > > DHR
> > > > > > > >> >> tells
> > > > > > > >> >> > us
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> which
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> hour
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > that we are looking for to verify.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > Perry
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:25 AM,
John
> Halley
> > > > Gotway
> > > > > > via
> > > > > > > >> RT <
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > Hi Perry,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > We just posted the met-7.0 release
> > yesterday.
> > > > > > Julie
> > > > > > > >> >> > Prestopnik
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> is
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > actually
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > out at NCEP today, and she'll be
the one
> to
> > > > > install
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > >> on
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> WCOSS. So
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> I'll
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > let her chime in to let us know
when
> she's
> > > able
> > > > > to
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > > >> >> that.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > John
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:27 AM,
> > > > > > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > > >> >> via
> > > > > > > >> >> > RT
> > > > > > > >> >> > > <
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > > > > >> >> > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > I am able to start working on
this
> today.
> > > Is
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > >> >> > available
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> for
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > testing
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > now?
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Also I'm not entirely sure what
you
> mean
> > in
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> obs
> > > > > > > >> >> > and
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> model
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > don't match up well in time? In
the
> > > example
> > > > I
> > > > > > sent
> > > > > > > >> you,
> > > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> have
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > a
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> set
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > of
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > observations and all the
forecast files
> > > that
> > > > > > verify
> > > > > > > >> at
> > > > > > > >> >> that
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> particular
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > time. Both the model and
observed bufr
> > > file
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > >> >> 1-hourly
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> fields
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > (hourly
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > fields of 1-hr and hourly fields
of
> 8-hr
> > > > ozone
> > > > > -
> > > > > > > >> kind of
> > > > > > > >> >> > hard
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> to
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > imagine
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > that, but they are just values).
So we
> > > will
> > > > > also
> > > > > > > >> need a
> > > > > > > >> >> > way
> > > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> match
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > up
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > the observed field with the
modeled
> field
> > > at
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> >> > > corresponding
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > time.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > (For
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > example, matching the 3-hr
forecast
> from
> > > the
> > > > > 12Z
> > > > > > > >> model
> > > > > > > >> >> run
> > > > > > > >> >> > > with
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > the
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> 15Z
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > observed field.)
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > I think this is best achieved
with a
> > > > different
> > > > > > > >> >> execution of
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> point_stat
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > for
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > each individual hour, because
that's
> how
> > I
> > > do
> > > > > > > >> gridtobs
> > > > > > > >> >> > > anyway.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > What are your thoughts on the
above?
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Perry
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:32 PM,
John
> > Halley
> > > > > > Gotway
> > > > > > > >> via
> > > > > > > >> >> RT <
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Hi Perry,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Howard Soh updated the logic
in the
> > PB2NC
> > > > to
> > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > >> >> the 1
> > > > > > > >> >> > > and
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> 8-hour
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > COPO
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > observations in the way we
discussed.
> > I
> > > > > wanted
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> let
> > > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> know
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> that
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > I
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > tested it this afternoon and
got some
> > > good
> > > > > > > results.
> > > > > > > >> >> The
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> sample
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > fcst/obs
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > data you sent doesn't line up
well in
> > > time,
> > > > > so
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > >> just
> > > > > > > >> >> > set a
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> very
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > large
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > matching time window in Point-
Stat.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Here's the relevant pieces of
the
> > > > Point-Stat
> > > > > > > config
> > > > > > > >> >> file:
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > fcst = {
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > field = [
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "OZCON"; level
=
> "A01";
> > },
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "OZCON"; level
=
> "A08";
> > }
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > ];
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > }
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > obs = {
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > message_type = [ "AIRNOW"
];
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > convert(x) = x*10^9;
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > field = [
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level =
"A01";
> > },
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level =
> "A08"; }
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > ];
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > }
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > And I'm just *guessing* at
that
> > > conversion
> > > > > > > factor.
> > > > > > > >> >> The
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > resulting
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > numbers
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > look about right, but its up
to you
> to
> > > > > confirm.
> > > > > > > >> Using
> > > > > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > sample
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > data
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > you
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > sent me, this results in a
mean error
> > > value
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > >> 12.64
> > > > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> 15.48
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > for
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > the
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > 1
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > and 8-hour accums,
respectively. But
> > the
> > > > > > > fcst/obs
> > > > > > > >> >> data
> > > > > > > >> >> > are
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> actually
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > offset
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > by 12 hours so these numbers
don't
> mean
> > > > much,
> > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > >> >> than
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > demonstrating
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > there isn't a huge order of
magnitude
> > > > > > difference.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > John
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:06
PM, John
> > > > Halley
> > > > > > > >> Gotway <
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> johnhg at ucar.edu
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > Perry,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > I think I prefer option 2 as
well.
> > > I'll
> > > > > ask
> > > > > > > >> Howard
> > > > > > > >> >> > Soh,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> one
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > of
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> the
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > developers here, to add
specific
> > logic
> > > > for
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> >> AIRNOW
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> message
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> type,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > where...
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > - level = absolute value
of TPHR
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > - qc flag = QCIND
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > John
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:00
PM,
> > > > > > > >> >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> via
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > RT
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> <
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Hi, John,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> What would be easier in
comparing
> to
> > > the
> > > > > > model
> > > > > > > >> >> output,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > do
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> you
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > think?
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > I
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> think that having it as
some sort
> of
> > > > > > > >> "accumulation
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> variable"
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> (the
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > 2nd
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> option) would work.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> In the model, though, they
are not
> > > > listed
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > >> >> either 1
> > > > > > > >> >> > or
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> 8 hr
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> accumulations/averages.
They are
> > > listed
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > >> either,
> > > > > > > >> >> > for
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > example
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > for
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > 24
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> hr forecast, either "23-24
hr ave
> > > fcst"
> > > > or
> > > > > > > >> "16-24
> > > > > > > >> >> hr
> > > > > > > >> >> > ave
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > fcst".
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > Would
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > be
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> easier if it said "1 hr ave
fcst"
> or
> > > "8
> > > > hr
> > > > > > ave
> > > > > > > >> >> fcst",
> > > > > > > >> >> > > but
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> again,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > that's
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> not
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> what we got. So I'm
guessing that
> > > might
> > > > > > make
> > > > > > > >> it a
> > > > > > > >> >> > > little
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > more
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > challenging
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> for the model to script up?
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Perry
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at
3:50 PM,
> > John
> > > > > Halley
> > > > > > > >> Gotway
> > > > > > > >> >> > via
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> RT <
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Perry,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > I wanted to check how
point
> > > > observations
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > >> >> precip
> > > > > > > >> >> > are
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> stored in
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> PrepBUFR
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > so I ran PB2NC on an old
NDAS
> file
> > > > using
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> >> -index
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> option.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > Here's
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> what I
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > found:
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP06:
TOTAL
> > > > > PRECIPITATION
> > > > > > > >> PAST 6
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > HOURS
> > > types:
> > > > > > ADPSFC
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP24:
TOTAL
> > > > > PRECIPITATION
> > > > > > > >> PAST 24
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > HOURS
> > types:
> > > > > > ADPSFC
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > So basically, the
accumulation
> > > > interval
> > > > > > > >> exists in
> > > > > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > observation
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> variable
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > name. Following that
paradigm,
> if
> > > the
> > > > > > > AIRNOW
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> observations
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> were
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > stored
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > using COPO01 and COPO08,
then
> MET
> > > > would
> > > > > > > >> already
> > > > > > > >> >> be
> > > > > > > >> >> > > able
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> to
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > handle
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > them
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > already. But I suppose
we're
> > likely
> > > > > stuck
> > > > > > > >> with
> > > > > > > >> >> what
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> we've
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> got.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > I can see 2 ways we could
handle
> > > this
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> >> processing
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> AIRNOW
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > message
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > types...
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Option 1: Follow the
precip
> > example
> > > > and
> > > > > > > modify
> > > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> observation
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > variable
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > names by appending the
TPHR
> value.
> > > > > > Instead
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > >> >> COPO,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> we'd
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> have
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> observations
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > named COPO01 and COPO08.
And if
> > we
> > > > ever
> > > > > > see
> > > > > > > >> >> TPHR =
> > > > > > > >> >> > > -24,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> that'd
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > produce
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> a
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > COPO24 variable name.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Option 2: We could keep
the COPO
> > > > > variable
> > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> unchanged,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > and
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > instead
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> set
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the "level" value for
these
> > > > observations
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> >> indicate
> > > > > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > accumulation
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > interval. If you look at
the
> > > ascii2nc
> > > > > > usage
> > > > > > > >> >> > > statement,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> you'll
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > see
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > following:
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > "Level" is the
pressure level
> > > (hPa)
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > >> >> > accumulation
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> interval
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> (HH[MMSS]).
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > So we could use the value
of
> TPHR
> > to
> > > > > > define
> > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> >> > level
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> as an
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> "accumulation"
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > interval.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Either option could be
made to
> > work
> > > in
> > > > > > MET.
> > > > > > > >> Does
> > > > > > > >> >> > one
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> make
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> more
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > sense
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > you than the other?
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > While we're doing this, I
assume
> > we
> > > > > should
> > > > > > > >> also
> > > > > > > >> >> > using
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> QCIND
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > value
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > populate the obs_qty
(i.e.
> quality
> > > > > > control)
> > > > > > > >> >> setting?
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > John
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at
1:34 PM,
> > > John
> > > > > > Halley
> > > > > > > >> >> Gotway
> > > > > > > >> >> > <
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > johnhg at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Perry,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Until users dive into
the
> > details,
> > > > we
> > > > > > > won't
> > > > > > > >> >> know
> > > > > > > >> >> > > about
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> these
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > sorts
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > of
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> -1
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > vs -8 issues. But once
we
> > > identify
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> >> > > requirements,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> we
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> can
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > update
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > software to handle
them.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > So please keep the
feedback
> > > coming.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > John
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at
1:31
> PM,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> via
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > RT
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > <
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu>
wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> <URL:
> > > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Hi, John,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> OK, thanks! I thought
the
> > latest
> > > > > > version
> > > > > > > >> of
> > > > > > > >> >> MET
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> that we
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> were
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > using
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> was
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> configured for the air
> quality
> > > > > > > >> applications?
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Perry
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018
at 3:26
> > PM,
> > > > John
> > > > > > > >> Halley
> > > > > > > >> >> > Gotway
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> via
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> RT <
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu>
wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Perry,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > I just grabbed them
and ran
> > the
> > > > > > > forecast
> > > > > > > >> >> data
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> through
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> the
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> plot_data_plane
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > utility. Looks like
> > specifying
> > > > the
> > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > >> >> as an
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > accumulation
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > type
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> does
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> the
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > trick:
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_
> > > > > > data_plane
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> AWIP3D18.tm00
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > OZCON_1hr.ps
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON";
level="A1";'
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_
> > > > > > data_plane
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> AWIP3D18.tm00
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > OZCON_8hr.ps
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON";
level="A8";'
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > The resulting images
are
> > > > attached.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Next, I ran pb2nc
using the
> > > > -index
> > > > > > > >> option to
> > > > > > > >> >> > see
> > > > > > > >> >> > > a
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > description
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > of
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > prepda contents:
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/pb2nc
> > > > > prepda.
> > > > > > > >> >> 2017081000 <(201)%20708-1000> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > prepda.2017081000.nc
> > > > > > > >> >> > > /usr/local/met-6.1/share/met/
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
config/PB2NCConfig_default
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > -index -log
pb2nc_index.log
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Header
> variables:
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
SID:
> STATION
> > > > > > > >> IDENTIFICATION
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
XOB:
> > LONGITUDE
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
YOB:
> > LATITUDE
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
DHR:
> > > OBSERVATION
> > > > > > TIME
> > > > > > > >> MINUS
> > > > > > > >> >> > > CYCLE
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > TIME
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
ELV:
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
TYP:
> > PREPBUFR
> > > > > REPORT
> > > > > > > >> TYPE
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
T29: DATA
> > DUMP
> > > > > > REPORT
> > > > > > > >> TYPE
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
ITP:
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
Observation
> > > > variables:
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
COPO:
> > > > CONCENTRATION
> > > > > > OF
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > POLLUTANT
> > > > > > > >> >> types:
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> AIRNOW
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
TYPO: TYPE
> OF
> > > > > > POLLUTANT
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
CAT:
> > PREPBUFR
> > > > DATA
> > > > > > > LEVEL
> > > > > > > >> >> > > CATEGORY
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
PROCN:
> PROCESS
> > > > > NUMBER
> > > > > > > FOR
> > > > > > > >> >> THIS
> > > > > > > >> >> > MPI
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> RUN
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > (OBTAINED
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> FROM
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > SCRIPT)
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
SQN:
> REPORT
> > > > > SEQUENCE
> > > > > > > >> NUMBER
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
QCIND:
> QUALITY
> > > > > CONTROL
> > > > > > > >> >> > INDICATION
> > > > > > > >> >> > > OF
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > FOLLOWING
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DATA
types:
> > AIRNOW
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
TSIG: TIME
> > > > > > SIGNIFICANCE
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
RPT:
> > REPORTED
> > > > > > > >> OBSERVATION
> > > > > > > >> >> TIME
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
TPHR: TIME
> > > PERIOD
> > > > > OR
> > > > > > > >> >> > DISPLACEMENT
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > I see the COPO and
TPHR
> > > > > observations
> > > > > > > >> listed.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > We'll
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> need to
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > update
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > PB2NC code to handle
the
> > logic
> > > > > you've
> > > > > > > >> >> > described.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > One option for
specifying
> > the 1
> > > > vs
> > > > > 8
> > > > > > > hour
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> difference
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> would
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > be
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > to
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> mimic
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> how
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > different precip
> accumulation
> > > > > > intervals
> > > > > > > >> are
> > > > > > > >> >> > > stored
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> for
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > gauges.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> I'll
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> look
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > more into how we
might do
> > that.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Thanks,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > John
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018
at
> 12:17
> > > PM,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > via
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > RT
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > <
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu>
wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > <URL:
> > > > > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Hi, John,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > I was just
wondering if
> you
> > > > have
> > > > > > > found
> > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> received
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> these
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > files.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Perry
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > On Wed, Feb 21,
2018 at
> > 10:30
> > > > AM,
> > > > > > > Perry
> > > > > > > >> >> > > Shafran -
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > NOAA
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Affiliate
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
perry.shafran at noaa.gov>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > I just
transferred some
> > > model
> > > > > > files
> > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > >> >> an
> > > > > > > >> >> > ob
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> file
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> here
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > on
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Theia.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> All
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > these model
files
> verify
> > at
> > > > the
> > > > > > ob
> > > > > > > >> time
> > > > > > > >> >> > here.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Have
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> a
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > look:
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > /scratch4/NCEPDEV/meso/save/
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Perry.Shafran/for_john
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Perry
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > On Tue, Feb 20,
2018 at
> > > 6:55
> > > > > PM,
> > > > > > > John
> > > > > > > >> >> > Halley
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Gotway
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> via
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > RT
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > <
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
met_help at ucar.edu>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Hi Perry,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Can you please
point
> me
> > > to a
> > > > > > model
> > > > > > > >> >> output
> > > > > > > >> >> > > file
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > containing
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > OZCON
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> fields?
Presumably,
> > these
> > > > are
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > >> GRIB1
> > > > > > > >> >> > or 2
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> format,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > and
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > hopefully,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> there's
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> some flag in
the
> header
> > > that
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > >> >> enable
> > > > > > > >> >> > us
> > > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > distinguish
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > between
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> the
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> GRIB
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> records
containing 1
> > and 8
> > > > > hour
> > > > > > > >> >> averages.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> As for the
point
> > > > > observations, I
> > > > > > > >> >> suspect
> > > > > > > >> >> > > that
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > we'll
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > need
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > to
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> add
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> logic
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > to
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> PB2NC to
distinguish
> > > between
> > > > > > the 1
> > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > >> >> 8
> > > > > > > >> >> > > hour
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > COPO
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > concentrations.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Perhaps
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> we could update
PB2NC
> to
> > > use
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> TPHR
> > > > > > > >> >> > values
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> to
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > renamed
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > COPO
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> COPO_1
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > and
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> COPO_8?
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Are these COPO
point
> > > > > > observations
> > > > > > > >> >> present
> > > > > > > >> >> > in
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> NDAS
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> or
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > GDAS
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > PrepBUFR
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > files?
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> John
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> On Tue, Feb 20,
2018
> at
> > > 1:40
> > > > > PM,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > via
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> RT <
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
met_help at ucar.edu>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Tue Feb 20
13:40:01
> > > 2018:
> > > > > > > Request
> > > > > > > >> >> 84134
> > > > > > > >> >> > > was
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > acted
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > upon.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Transaction:
Ticket
> > > > created
> > > > > by
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Queue:
> met_help
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Subject:
> > verifying
> > > > > ozone
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Owner:
Nobody
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Requestors:
> > > > > > > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Status:
new
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Ticket <URL:
> > > > > > > >> >> > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Hi, everyone,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I am helping
the AQM
> > > group
> > > > > > > verify
> > > > > > > >> >> ozone
> > > > > > > >> >> > > and
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> I
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> need
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > some
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> assistance
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > in
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> using
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > PB2NC (and
then
> later
> > > > > > > point_stat,
> > > > > > > >> but
> > > > > > > >> >> > > let's
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > start
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > with
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > PB2NC). I
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > need
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> to
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > be able to
read in
> two
> > > > > > > quantities
> > > > > > > >> >> from
> > > > > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> prepbufr
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > file
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > then
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> combine
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > that to be
able to
> > > compare
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> two
> > > > > > > >> >> > > model
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> items.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the bufr
file,
> the
> > > > > > variables
> > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > >> >> hand
> > > > > > > >> >> > > are
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > COPO
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > (the
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > ozone
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> concentration),
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > and also
TPHR. TPHR
> > is
> > > > > either
> > > > > > > -1
> > > > > > > >> or
> > > > > > > >> >> -8
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> depending on
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > whether
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> observed
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > ozone is a 1-
hr or
> > 8-hr
> > > > > > average.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In essence,
we have
> > two
> > > > > > entities
> > > > > > > >> here
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> depending
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> on
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > the
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> value of
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > TPHR:
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > 1-hr average
ozone
> and
> > > the
> > > > > > 8-hr
> > > > > > > >> >> average
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> ozone.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> But
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > they
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> have
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > same
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > value.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the model
we also
> > > have
> > > > > two
> > > > > > > >> >> variables.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> Both
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> are
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > called
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > OZCON,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> but
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > the
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > first one in
the
> file
> > > is a
> > > > > > 1-hr
> > > > > > > >> >> average
> > > > > > > >> >> > > and
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > second
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > one
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> is
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 8-hr
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > The trick
here is
> > > > verifying
> > > > > > 1-hr
> > > > > > > >> >> average
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> with
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> 1-hr
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > average,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> 8-hr
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average with
8-hr
> > > average.
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > >> think
> > > > > > > >> >> > there
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> is a
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> multiplication
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> factor
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > in
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > there
somewhere, as
> > the
> > > > obs
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > >> >> units
> > > > > > > >> >> > > of
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > mole/mole,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > while
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > model
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> is
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > in parts per
billion
> > > > (ppb).
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I don't know
if
> you've
> > > > > spoken
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > >> >> > AQM
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> team
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> on
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > how
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> exactly
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> to do
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> this,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > but I was
hoping to
> > help
> > > > > them
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > >> >> this.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > If
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > you
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> can
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > advise
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> on
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> how
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > to
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > do
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > this, that
would be
> > > great!
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Thanks!
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Perry
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: verifying ozone
From: John Halley Gotway
Time: Wed Mar 28 15:08:24 2018
AIRNOW 00002905 20180325_120000 49.02 -55.80 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 00002969 20180325_120000 53.30 -60.36 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 00002A31 20180325_120000 50.71 -57.36 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 00004E88 20180325_120000 46.24 -63.13 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 000075A8 20180325_120000 44.72 -63.48 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 000075F9 20180325_120000 45.61 -61.36 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 00007666 20180325_120000 46.14 -60.17 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 00007725 20180325_120000 44.43 -65.21 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 000077ED 20180325_120000 45.01 -65.00 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 00007851 20180325_120000 43.83 -66.08 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000019
AIRNOW 000078B5 20180325_120000 45.68 -62.70 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 0000797D 20180325_120000 45.04 -64.29 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 00009D0B 20180325_120000 45.31 -66.01 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 00009D0F 20180325_120000 45.25 -66.08 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 00009D6E 20180325_120000 46.11 -64.79 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 0000A0F1 20180325_120000 47.07 -65.42 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 0000A156 20180325_120000 47.61 -65.63 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0000C3C1 20180325_120000 45.55 -73.75 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0000C3C7 20180325_120000 45.52 -73.49 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 0000C41C 20180325_120000 45.44 -75.73 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0000C484 20180325_120000 46.82 -71.22 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 0000C487 20180325_120000 46.77 -71.37 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 0000C4E4 20180325_120000 45.41 -71.87 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0000C5AC 20180325_120000 48.23 -78.98 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0000C92D 20180325_120000 46.04 -72.66 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 0000CB21 20180325_120000 46.44 -72.89 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 0000CBE9 20180325_120000 45.44 -73.47 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 0000CC4D 20180325_120000 46.04 -74.48 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 0000CCB1 20180325_120000 45.62 -76.02 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0000CFD1 20180325_120000 48.82 -72.74 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0000D035 20180325_120000 46.68 -71.97 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 0000D099 20180325_120000 46.84 -71.62 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 0000D0FD 20180325_120000 47.01 -70.86 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 0000D161 20180325_120000 46.85 -70.45 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 0000D1C5 20180325_120000 45.82 -70.86 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 0000D229 20180325_120000 45.91 -71.95 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 0000D28D 20180325_120000 47.65 -72.29 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 0000D3B9 20180325_120000 49.82 -74.98 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 0000D675 20180325_120000 45.37 -71.25 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 0000D6D9 20180325_120000 46.77 -75.43 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 0000D8CD 20180325_120000 45.05 -72.86 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0000EAC8 20180325_120000 45.43 -75.68 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0000EB2C 20180325_120000 42.31 -83.04 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 0000EB90 20180325_120000 44.22 -76.52 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 0000EC08 20180325_120000 43.66 -79.39 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 0000EC60 20180325_120000 43.26 -79.86 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 0000ECC2 20180325_120000 46.49 -81.00 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 0000ED25 20180325_120000 46.53 -84.31 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 0000EDE8 20180325_120000 42.97 -81.20 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 0000EE51 20180325_120000 42.99 -82.40 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 0000EEB0 20180325_120000 44.30 -78.35 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0000EF11 20180325_120000 45.03 -74.74 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0000EF76 20180325_120000 43.16 -79.23 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0000EFDA 20180325_120000 43.14 -80.30 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 0000F03E 20180325_120000 43.44 -80.50 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 0000F231 20180325_120000 46.32 -79.45 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0000F425 20180325_120000 44.30 -81.58 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0000F745 20180325_120000 45.22 -78.93 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 0000F8D5 20180325_120000 43.33 -81.74 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 0000FA01 20180325_120000 49.66 -93.72 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000047
AIRNOW 0000FB91 20180325_120000 44.23 -79.78 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 0000FDE9 20180325_120000 44.39 -79.39 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 0000FEB1 20180325_120000 45.34 -80.04 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 0000FF15 20180325_120000 42.67 -81.16 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 0000FF79 20180325_120000 44.15 -77.40 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 00010109 20180325_120000 42.40 -82.21 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 0001016D 20180325_120000 54.45 -90.22 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000050
AIRNOW 00010235 20180325_120000 49.39 -82.12 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 000111E7 20180325_120000 49.95 -97.40 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 0001123B 20180325_120000 49.84 -99.92 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 00013953 20180325_120000 52.14 -106.66 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 00014051 20180325_120000 55.50 -106.72 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 00016008 20180325_120000 53.50 -113.61 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 00016009 20180325_120000 53.55 -113.37 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 00016012 20180325_120000 53.55 -113.50 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000021
AIRNOW 0001606E 20180325_120000 51.08 -114.14 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 000160BE 20180325_120000 52.30 -113.79 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 00016122 20180325_120000 50.05 -110.68 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 00016186 20180325_120000 49.72 -112.80 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 000161E9 20180325_120000 53.70 -113.22 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000021
AIRNOW 000161EE 20180325_120000 53.80 -112.93 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000022
AIRNOW 0001624D 20180325_120000 56.73 -111.39 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000018
AIRNOW 0001624E 20180325_120000 56.75 -111.48 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000018
AIRNOW 000162B1 20180325_120000 57.19 -111.64 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000017
AIRNOW 000163DD 20180325_120000 53.68 -112.87 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 000164A5 20180325_120000 53.37 -115.19 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 00016509 20180325_120000 53.14 -115.14 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 000165D1 20180325_120000 53.61 -115.88 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000011
AIRNOW 00016635 20180325_120000 53.13 -117.09 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000045
AIRNOW 00016699 20180325_120000 58.71 -111.18 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 000166FD 20180325_120000 51.95 -114.70 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 00016AE5 20180325_120000 53.59 -116.39 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 0001705D 20180325_120000 54.41 -110.23 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 000170C1 20180325_120000 54.22 -111.50 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0001870E 20180325_120000 49.28 -122.97 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000016
AIRNOW 00018717 20180325_120000 49.22 -122.99 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000013
AIRNOW 0001871D 20180325_120000 49.16 -122.90 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000005
AIRNOW 0001871F 20180325_120000 49.13 -122.69 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000015
AIRNOW 00018720 20180325_120000 49.14 -123.11 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000001
AIRNOW 00018724 20180325_120000 49.32 -123.08 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000014
AIRNOW 00018726 20180325_120000 49.19 -123.15 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000003
AIRNOW 00018727 20180325_120000 49.29 -122.79 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000001
AIRNOW 0001872C 20180325_120000 49.01 -123.08 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000014
AIRNOW 0001876A 20180325_120000 53.91 -122.74 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000023
AIRNOW 000187D0 20180325_120000 48.43 -123.36 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000008
AIRNOW 0001895D 20180325_120000 49.86 -119.47 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 00018A8B 20180325_120000 49.04 -122.31 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000008
AIRNOW 00018A8D 20180325_120000 49.02 -122.33 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000004
AIRNOW 00018AED 20180325_120000 49.16 -121.94 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000001
AIRNOW 00018B52 20180325_120000 49.25 -122.71 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000002
AIRNOW 00018BB5 20180325_120000 49.10 -122.57 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000001
AIRNOW 00018C19 20180325_120000 49.37 -121.50 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000002
AIRNOW 00018C7D 20180325_120000 49.22 -122.58 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000004
AIRNOW 00018D45 20180325_120000 52.98 -122.49 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 00018E71 20180325_120000 48.78 -123.13 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000021
AIRNOW 00018ED6 20180325_120000 49.20 -123.99 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000017
AIRNOW 00019001 20180325_120000 54.78 -127.18 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000021
AIRNOW 0001912D 20180325_120000 52.13 -122.15 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000021
AIRNOW 00019643 20180325_120000 50.23 -119.28 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000006
AIRNOW 00019A29 20180325_120000 50.14 -122.96 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 00990BBA 20180325_120000 30.49 -87.87 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 009DA37A 20180325_120000 34.76 -87.65 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000022
AIRNOW 00A0FAFB 20180325_120000 33.90 -86.05 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 00A31DD4 20180325_120000 31.19 -85.42 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 00A3BA27 20180325_120000 33.55 -86.82 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 00A3BDFB 20180325_120000 33.49 -86.91 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 00A3BDFD 20180325_120000 33.33 -87.00 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 00A3BE02 20180325_120000 33.55 -86.55 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 00A3CD9B 20180325_120000 33.80 -86.94 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 00A3D182 20180325_120000 33.58 -86.77 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000022
AIRNOW 00A62B1E 20180325_120000 34.69 -86.59 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000015
AIRNOW 00A76393 20180325_120000 30.77 -88.09 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 00A76B65 20180325_120000 30.47 -88.14 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 00A803BA 20180325_120000 32.41 -86.26 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 00A84DFB 20180325_120000 34.53 -86.97 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000023
AIRNOW 00AA70D4 20180325_120000 33.32 -86.83 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 00AABEF3 20180325_120000 32.36 -88.28 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000007
AIRNOW 00ABA95A 20180325_120000 33.09 -87.46 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 0262EE71 20180325_120000 32.01 -109.39 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 02632140 20180325_120000 35.21 -111.65 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 02633C91 20180325_120000 36.06 -112.15 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000047
AIRNOW 02636B7A 20180325_120000 33.65 -111.11 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 02644E00 20180325_120000 34.24 -113.56 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 026455E3 20180325_120000 33.48 -112.14 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 026459BB 20180325_120000 33.41 -111.86 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 026459BC 20180325_120000 33.56 -112.07 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 026459C2 20180325_120000 33.45 -111.73 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 026459D6 20180325_120000 33.63 -111.68 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000015
AIRNOW 02645DA1 20180325_120000 33.57 -112.19 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 02645DA5 20180325_120000 33.71 -111.85 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 0264618A 20180325_120000 33.46 -112.05 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000021
AIRNOW 0264618B 20180325_120000 33.48 -111.92 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000018
AIRNOW 02646573 20180325_120000 33.40 -112.07 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000023
AIRNOW 02646574 20180325_120000 33.30 -111.88 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000022
AIRNOW 02646575 20180325_120000 33.41 -111.93 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000015
AIRNOW 02646578 20180325_120000 33.82 -112.02 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 0264657A 20180325_120000 33.64 -112.34 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 0264657B 20180325_120000 33.37 -112.62 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000015
AIRNOW 0264712B 20180325_120000 33.29 -112.16 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000023
AIRNOW 0264713C 20180325_120000 33.49 -111.85 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000021
AIRNOW 0264713D 20180325_120000 33.51 -111.75 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000023
AIRNOW 0264713E 20180325_120000 33.47 -111.80 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000019
AIRNOW 02647140 20180325_120000 33.51 -111.84 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000021
AIRNOW 02647AF4 20180325_120000 33.98 -111.80 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000052
AIRNOW 02647BB6 20180325_120000 33.55 -111.61 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000022
AIRNOW 02647BB8 20180325_120000 33.61 -111.73 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 02647CDD 20180325_120000 33.50 -112.09 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000019
AIRNOW 0264F287 20180325_120000 34.82 -109.89 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000047
AIRNOW 02654045 20180325_120000 32.18 -110.74 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 02654423 20180325_120000 32.21 -110.88 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000005
AIRNOW 0265442A 20180325_120000 32.43 -111.07 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 0265442C 20180325_120000 32.05 -110.77 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000014
AIRNOW 02654434 20180325_120000 32.30 -110.98 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000007
AIRNOW 02654436 20180325_120000 31.88 -111.00 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 02654438 20180325_120000 32.17 -110.98 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000006
AIRNOW 0265443A 20180325_120000 32.38 -111.13 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000005
AIRNOW 0265A9A9 20180325_120000 33.08 -111.74 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 0265AD91 20180325_120000 33.29 -111.29 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 026697FB 20180325_120000 32.69 -114.61 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000046
AIRNOW 02FDFDB7 20180325_120000 34.18 -93.10 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 030047B5 20180325_120000 35.20 -90.19 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 030A59D2 20180325_120000 35.83 -93.22 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 030C2E93 20180325_120000 34.45 -94.14 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 030D18F7 20180325_120000 34.76 -92.28 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 030D1CDA 20180325_120000 34.83 -92.26 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 0310C275 20180325_120000 36.18 -94.12 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 0310C276 20180325_120000 36.01 -94.17 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 0393AE1D 20180325_120000 37.86 -122.30 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000019
AIRNOW 03944A52 20180325_120000 38.34 -120.76 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000006
AIRNOW 03949877 20180325_120000 39.71 -121.62 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 03949878 20180325_120000 39.76 -121.84 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0395389A 20180325_120000 39.20 -122.02 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 039582D2 20180325_120000 37.94 -122.03 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000016
AIRNOW 039586BC 20180325_120000 37.96 -122.36 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000018
AIRNOW 03961F1A 20180325_120000 38.73 -120.82 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 03966D3B 20180325_120000 36.79 -119.77 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 0396BB53 20180325_120000 39.53 -122.19 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 03975795 20180325_120000 32.68 -115.48 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000045
AIRNOW 03975B7B 20180325_120000 32.79 -115.56 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 03976733 20180325_120000 33.03 -115.62 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000045
AIRNOW 03976734 20180325_120000 33.21 -115.54 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000019
AIRNOW 0397A5B2 20180325_120000 37.36 -118.33 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 0397A615 20180325_120000 36.51 -116.85 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000045
AIRNOW 0397F3D7 20180325_120000 35.35 -118.85 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0397F3DB 20180325_120000 35.05 -118.15 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000047
AIRNOW 0397F3DE 20180325_120000 35.36 -119.06 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 0398075A 20180325_120000 35.24 -118.79 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 03980B41 20180325_120000 35.50 -119.27 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 03992C52 20180325_120000 34.14 -117.92 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 03992C60 20180325_120000 34.14 -117.85 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 03992CC1 20180325_120000 34.05 -118.46 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000019
AIRNOW 0399309F 20180325_120000 34.07 -118.23 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 03993101 20180325_120000 34.20 -118.53 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000009
AIRNOW 03993166 20180325_120000 33.90 -118.21 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 03993292 20180325_120000 34.01 -118.07 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 039932F5 20180325_120000 34.07 -117.75 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 03993425 20180325_120000 34.13 -118.13 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 03993BF6 20180325_120000 33.80 -118.22 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 03993FDD 20180325_120000 33.96 -118.43 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000016
AIRNOW 039943CC 20180325_120000 34.38 -118.53 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 03994F99 20180325_120000 34.67 -118.13 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 039A16B3 20180325_120000 37.71 -119.71 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 039A64D8 20180325_120000 39.15 -123.20 NA COPO 3600 0 2
0.000000027
AIRNOW 039B9D52 20180325_120000 36.48 -121.73 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000013
AIRNOW 039B9D58 20180325_120000 36.21 -121.13 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000010
AIRNOW 039BA13B 20180325_120000 36.69 -121.62 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000023
AIRNOW 039C3995 20180325_120000 39.23 -121.06 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 039C87B7 20180325_120000 33.83 -117.94 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 039C8F96 20180325_120000 33.63 -117.68 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 039C9B39 20180325_120000 33.93 -117.95 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 039CD5D2 20180325_120000 38.94 -121.10 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 039CD5D4 20180325_120000 39.10 -120.95 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 039CD5D6 20180325_120000 38.75 -121.27 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 039D721C 20180325_120000 33.92 -116.86 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 039D7220 20180325_120000 33.58 -117.07 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 039D79E2 20180325_120000 33.71 -116.22 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000052
AIRNOW 039D8599 20180325_120000 33.85 -116.54 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 039D8981 20180325_120000 33.79 -117.23 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000019
AIRNOW 039D9151 20180325_120000 34.00 -117.42 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 039D9155 20180325_120000 34.00 -117.49 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000019
AIRNOW 039D9539 20180325_120000 33.68 -117.33 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000020
AIRNOW 039D953B 20180325_120000 33.61 -114.60 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000023
AIRNOW 039DC036 20180325_120000 38.61 -121.37 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000017
AIRNOW 039DC03A 20180325_120000 38.57 -121.49 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000022
AIRNOW 039DC03B 20180325_120000 38.30 -121.42 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 039DD3BB 20180325_120000 38.49 -121.21 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 039E0E52 20180325_120000 36.84 -121.36 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000021
AIRNOW 039E0E53 20180325_120000 36.49 -121.16 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000011
AIRNOW 039E5C71 20180325_120000 34.89 -117.02 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 039E5C75 20180325_120000 34.24 -117.27 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 039E5C7C 20180325_120000 34.43 -117.59 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 039E5DA2 20180325_120000 34.51 -117.33 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 039E6059 20180325_120000 35.10 -115.78 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000052
AIRNOW 039E605C 20180325_120000 34.10 -117.63 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 039E6142 20180325_120000 35.77 -117.37 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 039E6442 20180325_120000 34.10 -117.49 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 039E6C11 20180325_120000 34.42 -117.29 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 039E6C13 20180325_120000 34.06 -117.15 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 039E7F9A 20180325_120000 34.07 -116.39 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 039E7F9C 20180325_120000 34.11 -117.27 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 039EAA91 20180325_120000 32.63 -117.06 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000018
AIRNOW 039EAE7E 20180325_120000 32.84 -116.77 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000045
AIRNOW 039EAE86 20180325_120000 32.58 -116.93 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 039EAE88 20180325_120000 32.85 -117.12 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 039F4ABA 20180325_120000 37.95 -121.27 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 039F94F5 20180325_120000 35.61 -120.66 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000014
AIRNOW 039F9CC6 20180325_120000 35.26 -120.67 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000012
AIRNOW 039FA0A9 20180325_120000 35.37 -120.84 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000023
AIRNOW 039FA492 20180325_120000 35.03 -120.50 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 039FB432 20180325_120000 35.49 -120.67 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000005
AIRNOW 039FB435 20180325_120000 35.64 -120.23 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 039FB436 20180325_120000 35.35 -120.04 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000023
AIRNOW 03A03138 20180325_120000 34.46 -120.02 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000046
AIRNOW 03A03520 20180325_120000 34.95 -120.43 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000015
AIRNOW 03A03525 20180325_120000 34.73 -120.43 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 03A03526 20180325_120000 34.54 -119.79 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 03A0352A 20180325_120000 34.53 -120.20 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 03A0352D 20180325_120000 34.40 -119.46 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000023
AIRNOW 03A03531 20180325_120000 34.49 -120.05 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 03A03904 20180325_120000 34.64 -120.46 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000016
AIRNOW 03A0390B 20180325_120000 34.45 -119.83 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 03A03CE9 20180325_120000 34.61 -120.08 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 03A040D3 20180325_120000 34.60 -120.63 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 03A08726 20180325_120000 37.08 -121.60 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000020
AIRNOW 03A0CD77 20180325_120000 36.99 -121.99 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000019
AIRNOW 03A11B94 20180325_120000 40.55 -122.38 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 03A11B97 20180325_120000 40.45 -122.30 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 03A11B99 20180325_120000 40.69 -122.40 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000017
AIRNOW 03A1274B 20180325_120000 40.54 -121.58 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000046
AIRNOW 03A1BFA1 20180325_120000 41.73 -122.63 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000021
AIRNOW 03A211AA 20180325_120000 38.35 -121.96 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 03A2A235 20180325_120000 37.66 -120.99 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 03A2F053 20180325_120000 39.14 -121.62 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 03A3DAB9 20180325_120000 36.49 -118.83 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 03A3E282 20180325_120000 36.33 -119.29 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 03A428D5 20180325_120000 37.98 -120.38 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000020
AIRNOW 03A476F7 20180325_120000 34.21 -118.87 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000012
AIRNOW 03A476F9 20180325_120000 34.40 -118.81 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000008
AIRNOW 03A47ADC 20180325_120000 34.45 -119.23 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000003
AIRNOW 03A47EC2 20180325_120000 34.28 -118.68 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000011
AIRNOW 03A482A9 20180325_120000 34.27 -119.13 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000009
AIRNOW 03A4C514 20180325_120000 38.53 -121.77 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000023
AIRNOW 03A4C8FB 20180325_120000 38.66 -121.73 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 04C5E0CC 20180325_120000 37.21 -107.25 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 04C6AFDE 20180325_120000 40.07 -105.22 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 04C96EF2 20180325_120000 39.75 -104.99 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000014
AIRNOW 04C96F0A 20180325_120000 39.78 -105.01 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000014
AIRNOW 04CA0B34 20180325_120000 39.53 -105.07 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 04CAF59D 20180325_120000 38.96 -104.82 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000045
AIRNOW 04CAF5A0 20180325_120000 38.85 -104.90 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 04CB91DC 20180325_120000 39.54 -107.78 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000011
AIRNOW 04CCA337 20180325_120000 38.96 -106.99 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000048
AIRNOW 04CDB4B5 20180325_120000 39.64 -105.14 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 04CDB4B6 20180325_120000 39.91 -105.19 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 04CDB4BB 20180325_120000 39.74 -105.18 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 04CDB4BD 20180325_120000 39.54 -105.30 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 04CF0889 20180325_120000 37.14 -107.63 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000021
AIRNOW 04CF088B 20180325_120000 37.10 -107.87 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000014
AIRNOW 04CF3B57 20180325_120000 40.28 -105.55 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000053
AIRNOW 04CF3B5B 20180325_120000 40.59 -105.14 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 04CF3F3C 20180325_120000 40.58 -105.08 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000020
AIRNOW 04D11013 20180325_120000 40.33 -108.49 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 04D15E95 20180325_120000 37.20 -108.49 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000050
AIRNOW 04D46B75 20180325_120000 40.00 -107.85 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 04D778B9 20180325_120000 40.39 -104.74 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000018
AIRNOW 055D71A1 20180325_120000 41.00 -73.59 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 055D75F3 20180325_120000 41.40 -73.44 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 055D7D4F 20180325_120000 41.15 -73.10 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 055D94BB 20180325_120000 41.12 -73.34 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 055DC39B 20180325_120000 41.78 -72.63 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 055E0DD5 20180325_120000 41.83 -73.30 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 055E7F1F 20180325_120000 41.55 -72.63 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 055EAA2B 20180325_120000 41.30 -72.90 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 055ECD3A 20180325_120000 41.26 -72.55 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 055EF8AC 20180325_120000 41.35 -72.08 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 055F4A39 20180325_120000 41.98 -72.39 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 055FBB77 20180325_120000 41.84 -72.01 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 05F60812 20180325_120000 38.98 -75.56 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 05F65A1F 20180325_120000 39.55 -75.73 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 05F65A22 20180325_120000 39.82 -75.56 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 05F65A25 20180325_120000 39.77 -75.50 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 05F65E04 20180325_120000 39.74 -75.56 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 05F6A83A 20180325_120000 38.64 -75.61 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 05F6A83B 20180325_120000 38.78 -75.17 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 068E9EB9 20180325_120000 38.90 -76.96 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000022
AIRNOW 068E9EBC 20180325_120000 38.92 -77.01 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 068E9EC2 20180325_120000 38.97 -77.02 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 07278332 20180325_120000 30.20 -82.45 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 0727D156 20180325_120000 30.13 -85.74 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000052
AIRNOW 07286D97 20180325_120000 28.05 -80.63 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 07287D31 20180325_120000 28.31 -80.62 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000052
AIRNOW 0728BBD1 20180325_120000 26.07 -80.34 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000010
AIRNOW 0728BBD2 20180325_120000 26.05 -80.26 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000010
AIRNOW 0728C383 20180325_120000 26.29 -80.10 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000008
AIRNOW 0728DAF2 20180325_120000 26.09 -80.11 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000021
AIRNOW 072A4254 20180325_120000 26.30 -81.72 NA COPO 3600 0 2
0.000000026
AIRNOW 072A9072 20180325_120000 30.18 -82.62 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000013
AIRNOW 072BC93D 20180325_120000 30.48 -81.59 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000056
AIRNOW 072BC954 20180325_120000 30.26 -81.45 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000048
AIRNOW 072BC95A 20180325_120000 30.38 -81.84 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000052
AIRNOW 072C1714 20180325_120000 30.53 -87.20 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 072C1722 20180325_120000 30.37 -87.27 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 072C6534 20180325_120000 29.49 -81.28 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 072F7273 20180325_120000 27.19 -81.34 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000049
AIRNOW 072FC0E1 20180325_120000 27.74 -82.47 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 072FC49B 20180325_120000 27.93 -82.45 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000006
AIRNOW 072FC4B9 20180325_120000 27.89 -82.54 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 072FCC4A 20180325_120000 27.97 -82.23 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 07300EB4 20180325_120000 30.85 -85.60 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 073083D7 20180325_120000 27.85 -80.46 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 07319552 20180325_120000 28.53 -81.72 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 0731EB42 20180325_120000 26.55 -81.98 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 0731EF2A 20180325_120000 26.45 -81.94 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000020
AIRNOW 0732319C 20180325_120000 30.44 -84.35 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000013
AIRNOW 0732F4D7 20180325_120000 30.11 -84.99 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 073375CA 20180325_120000 27.63 -82.55 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000022
AIRNOW 073379BC 20180325_120000 27.48 -82.62 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000013
AIRNOW 073379BD 20180325_120000 27.45 -82.52 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000023
AIRNOW 0733B833 20180325_120000 29.17 -82.10 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0733B834 20180325_120000 29.19 -82.17 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 07340657 20180325_120000 27.17 -80.24 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 07342D7B 20180325_120000 25.73 -80.16 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000055
AIRNOW 07342D7D 20180325_120000 25.59 -80.33 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000013
AIRNOW 0734F0B2 20180325_120000 30.42 -86.67 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000047
AIRNOW 07358CF8 20180325_120000 28.45 -81.38 NA COPO 3600 0 2
0.000000030
AIRNOW 073594C2 20180325_120000 28.60 -81.36 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0735E2E2 20180325_120000 28.35 -81.64 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000023
AIRNOW 07362945 20180325_120000 26.59 -80.06 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000017
AIRNOW 07367755 20180325_120000 28.33 -82.31 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000013
AIRNOW 07367F21 20180325_120000 28.20 -82.76 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 0736C574 20180325_120000 27.97 -82.74 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000006
AIRNOW 0736C582 20180325_120000 27.79 -82.74 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000013
AIRNOW 0736D8FA 20180325_120000 28.09 -82.70 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000002
AIRNOW 07372B05 20180325_120000 27.94 -82.00 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000006
AIRNOW 07372B06 20180325_120000 28.03 -81.97 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 0737FDFD 20180325_120000 27.39 -80.31 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000018
AIRNOW 07384C1F 20180325_120000 30.39 -87.01 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 07389E1D 20180325_120000 27.31 -82.57 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 07389E1E 20180325_120000 27.35 -82.48 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000016
AIRNOW 0738A202 20180325_120000 27.09 -82.36 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000015
AIRNOW 0738EC3A 20180325_120000 28.75 -81.31 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 073A76C1 20180325_120000 29.11 -80.99 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 073A827A 20180325_120000 29.21 -81.05 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 07C2D8DC 20180325_120000 32.80 -83.54 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 07C76CC5 20180325_120000 32.07 -81.05 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000050
AIRNOW 07C808F1 20180325_120000 34.47 -85.41 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000019
AIRNOW 07C8A532 20180325_120000 33.92 -83.36 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 07C9DDB3 20180325_120000 34.01 -84.61 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 07CAC811 20180325_120000 33.58 -82.13 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 07CC9CD1 20180325_120000 34.38 -84.06 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 07CD3912 20180325_120000 33.69 -84.27 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 07CE7194 20180325_120000 33.74 -84.78 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 07D21B47 20180325_120000 33.72 -84.36 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 07D30576 20180325_120000 31.17 -81.50 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000052
AIRNOW 07D43DF2 20180325_120000 33.96 -84.07 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000005
AIRNOW 07D6AEF2 20180325_120000 33.43 -84.16 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 07E024D3 20180325_120000 34.78 -84.63 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 07E072F8 20180325_120000 32.52 -84.94 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 07E30AF7 20180325_120000 33.18 -84.41 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 07E5072B 20180325_120000 33.43 -82.02 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 07E554F1 20180325_120000 33.59 -84.07 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 07E77BB9 20180325_120000 31.95 -84.08 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000046
AIRNOW 09898F1A 20180325_120000 43.60 -116.35 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 098CEAD5 20180325_120000 43.46 -113.56 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 09910917 20180325_120000 46.28 -116.02 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 0A222597 20180325_120000 39.92 -91.34 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 0A24E4B7 20180325_120000 40.24 -88.19 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 0A250BB7 20180325_120000 40.05 -88.37 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 0A2580F1 20180325_120000 39.21 -87.67 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0A26B971 20180325_120000 41.67 -87.73 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0A26B990 20180325_120000 41.76 -87.55 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 0A26BD5B 20180325_120000 41.98 -87.79 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 0A26BFB1 20180325_120000 41.67 -87.99 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0A26C58F 20180325_120000 41.97 -87.88 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0A26C912 20180325_120000 41.86 -87.75 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0A26C917 20180325_120000 42.06 -87.86 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 0A26C9D9 20180325_120000 42.14 -87.80 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 0A26D4CA 20180325_120000 42.06 -87.67 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000045
AIRNOW 0A28A5A1 20180325_120000 41.81 -88.07 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0A297C79 20180325_120000 39.07 -88.55 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0A2BE992 20180325_120000 38.09 -88.62 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 0A2EA925 20180325_120000 39.10 -90.34 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0A2F1DD7 20180325_120000 42.29 -90.00 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0A2F9315 20180325_120000 42.05 -88.27 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 0A30CF7F 20180325_120000 42.47 -87.81 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000046
AIRNOW 0A32EE71 20180325_120000 42.22 -88.24 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 0A334463 20180325_120000 40.52 -89.00 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 0A338ABD 20180325_120000 39.87 -88.93 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 0A33D8D2 20180325_120000 39.40 -89.81 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 0A3426F8 20180325_120000 38.89 -90.15 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 0A342AE1 20180325_120000 38.73 -89.96 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0A3432AF 20180325_120000 38.86 -90.11 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 0A344DF7 20180325_120000 38.87 -89.62 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0A37D088 20180325_120000 40.69 -89.61 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0A37D459 20180325_120000 40.75 -89.59 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 0A39F351 20180325_120000 38.18 -89.79 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 0A3A9B4A 20180325_120000 41.51 -90.52 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 0A3ADDBA 20180325_120000 38.61 -90.16 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 0A3B79FE 20180325_120000 39.83 -89.64 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 0A4011C3 20180325_120000 41.22 -88.19 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0A40B1E1 20180325_120000 42.34 -89.04 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 0ABB0A32 20180325_120000 41.22 -85.02 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 0ABB0A34 20180325_120000 41.09 -85.10 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 0ABB5857 20180325_120000 39.29 -85.77 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0ABC42B1 20180325_120000 40.00 -86.40 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 0ABC90D1 20180325_120000 39.26 -86.29 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0ABCDEF2 20180325_120000 40.54 -86.55 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 0ABD7B38 20180325_120000 38.39 -85.66 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0AC08877 20180325_120000 41.72 -85.82 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 0AC1289C 20180325_120000 38.31 -85.83 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0AC2F971 20180325_120000 38.99 -86.99 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0AC34796 20180325_120000 40.07 -85.99 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 0AC431F4 20180325_120000 39.76 -86.40 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 0AC51C52 20180325_120000 40.96 -85.38 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 0AC76637 20180325_120000 38.74 -87.49 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 0AC829A6 20180325_120000 41.61 -87.30 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000019
AIRNOW 0AC83168 20180325_120000 41.64 -87.49 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 0AC877B5 20180325_120000 41.72 -86.91 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0AC877BA 20180325_120000 41.63 -86.68 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 0AC913FA 20180325_120000 40.00 -85.66 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 0AC96242 20180325_120000 39.86 -86.02 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 0AC96249 20180325_120000 39.75 -86.19 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 0AC9625E 20180325_120000 39.81 -86.11 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 0AC96267 20180325_120000 39.79 -86.13 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 0ACB36D5 20180325_120000 39.58 -86.48 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 0ACD59B9 20180325_120000 38.11 -86.60 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0ACDF608 20180325_120000 41.62 -87.20 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000017
AIRNOW 0ACDF60A 20180325_120000 41.51 -87.04 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 0ACE4413 20180325_120000 38.01 -87.72 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 0AD018DA 20180325_120000 41.55 -86.37 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0AD018DF 20180325_120000 41.70 -86.21 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0AD018E0 20180325_120000 41.75 -86.11 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0AD0B511 20180325_120000 39.61 -85.87 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0AD3743D 20180325_120000 38.11 -87.54 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 0AD41082 20180325_120000 39.49 -87.40 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 0AD41088 20180325_120000 39.56 -87.33 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0AD48597 20180325_120000 40.82 -85.66 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 0AD4FAD8 20180325_120000 38.05 -87.28 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 0AD4FADB 20180325_120000 37.95 -87.29 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0B6469B1 20180325_120000 42.28 -91.53 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 0B6469B8 20180325_120000 41.98 -91.69 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 0B681312 20180325_120000 40.97 -95.04 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 0B6A842E 20180325_120000 41.60 -93.64 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 0B6A8A3B 20180325_120000 41.85 -93.70 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0B6C0ABE 20180325_120000 41.70 -90.52 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0B6E2D96 20180325_120000 40.69 -92.01 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 0BF9A4BA 20180325_120000 38.84 -94.75 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 0BFB7973 20180325_120000 39.33 -94.95 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 0C000D53 20180325_120000 37.68 -95.48 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 0C0627DA 20180325_120000 37.70 -97.31 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 0C0627E2 20180325_120000 37.90 -97.49 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000022
AIRNOW 0C06C41D 20180325_120000 39.02 -95.71 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 0C08E6F2 20180325_120000 37.48 -97.37 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 0C098331 20180325_120000 38.77 -99.76 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 0C0BA625 20180325_120000 39.12 -94.64 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 0C865452 20180325_120000 36.61 -83.74 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 0C86A273 20180325_120000 38.92 -84.85 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 0C873EC1 20180325_120000 38.46 -82.63 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 0C88C556 20180325_120000 37.99 -85.71 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 0C8A098A 20180325_120000 39.02 -84.47 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 0C8AEA24 20180325_120000 38.24 -82.99 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 0C8B8476 20180325_120000 36.91 -87.32 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0C8D5935 20180325_120000 37.78 -87.08 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 0C8DA945 20180325_120000 37.13 -86.15 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 0C8E91BC 20180325_120000 38.07 -84.50 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0C91ED17 20180325_120000 38.55 -82.73 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0C928956 20180325_120000 37.71 -85.85 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 0C93C1DE 20180325_120000 37.87 -87.46 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 0C9548A3 20180325_120000 38.06 -85.90 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 0C9548B3 20180325_120000 38.23 -85.65 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 0C9548C0 20180325_120000 38.18 -85.57 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 0C959691 20180325_120000 37.89 -84.59 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 0C998E33 20180325_120000 37.16 -88.39 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0C9A7C90 20180325_120000 37.06 -88.57 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 0C9F3377 20180325_120000 37.92 -83.07 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 0CA09314 20180325_120000 38.40 -85.44 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0CA1CB93 20180325_120000 37.28 -83.22 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0CA219B2 20180325_120000 37.48 -82.54 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 0CA2B5F3 20180325_120000 37.10 -84.61 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 0CA4D8D4 20180325_120000 36.71 -86.57 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0CA6FBB9 20180325_120000 37.05 -86.21 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 0CA770D7 20180325_120000 37.70 -85.05 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 0D1DB254 20180325_120000 30.23 -90.97 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 0D1F38F8 20180325_120000 32.54 -93.75 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000018
AIRNOW 0D1F8711 20180325_120000 32.68 -93.86 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000019
AIRNOW 0D1FD532 20180325_120000 30.14 -93.37 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 0D1FD539 20180325_120000 30.23 -93.58 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000015
AIRNOW 0D21F813 20180325_120000 30.42 -91.18 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000023
AIRNOW 0D21F819 20180325_120000 30.46 -91.18 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000008
AIRNOW 0D21F81D 20180325_120000 30.70 -91.06 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 0D241AF9 20180325_120000 30.22 -91.32 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0D241AFC 20180325_120000 30.20 -91.13 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 0D24BB19 20180325_120000 30.04 -90.27 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000023
AIRNOW 0D255377 20180325_120000 30.23 -92.04 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 0D25A194 20180325_120000 29.76 -90.77 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000003
AIRNOW 0D268BF2 20180325_120000 30.32 -90.81 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000004
AIRNOW 0D281294 20180325_120000 32.51 -92.05 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000022
AIRNOW 0D28AED1 20180325_120000 30.68 -91.37 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000007
AIRNOW 0D2A3574 20180325_120000 29.94 -89.92 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 0D2B1FD2 20180325_120000 30.00 -90.82 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000011
AIRNOW 0D2B6DF2 20180325_120000 30.05 -90.64 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000021
AIRNOW 0D2C0A31 20180325_120000 30.01 -91.87 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 0D2CA672 20180325_120000 30.43 -90.20 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000023
AIRNOW 0D2F6591 20180325_120000 30.50 -91.21 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 0DB5AC9E 20180325_120000 43.97 -70.12 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 0DB5FEFC 20180325_120000 46.70 -68.03 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 0DB621B7 20180325_120000 46.60 -68.41 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 0DB648ED 20180325_120000 43.66 -70.27 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 0DB650A3 20180325_120000 43.56 -70.21 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 0DB6E577 20180325_120000 44.38 -68.26 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000046
AIRNOW 0DB78154 20180325_120000 43.92 -69.26 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 0DB8294A 20180325_120000 44.38 -70.85 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 0DB87B58 20180325_120000 44.74 -68.67 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 0DB892B8 20180325_120000 45.20 -68.74 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 0DB9F263 20180325_120000 44.53 -67.60 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 0DB9F270 20180325_120000 44.96 -67.06 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000045
AIRNOW 0DBA4096 20180325_120000 43.66 -70.63 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 0DBA4098 20180325_120000 43.59 -70.88 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000045
AIRNOW 0DBA4842 20180325_120000 43.34 -70.47 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 0E4E951B 20180325_120000 39.17 -76.63 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 0E4EE33F 20180325_120000 39.46 -76.63 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 0E4EEB09 20180325_120000 39.31 -76.47 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 0E4F7B9B 20180325_120000 38.54 -76.62 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 0E5017D1 20180325_120000 39.44 -77.04 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 0E5065F3 20180325_120000 39.70 -75.86 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0E50B41A 20180325_120000 38.50 -76.81 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 0E510234 20180325_120000 38.59 -76.14 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0E512937 20180325_120000 38.45 -76.11 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 0E515075 20180325_120000 39.42 -77.37 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 0E519E72 20180325_120000 39.71 -79.01 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000045
AIRNOW 0E51F079 20180325_120000 39.41 -76.30 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0E520FB9 20180325_120000 39.56 -76.20 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 0E5288D2 20180325_120000 39.31 -75.80 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 0E52E2A9 20180325_120000 39.11 -77.11 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 0E53252E 20180325_120000 39.06 -76.88 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 0E534453 20180325_120000 38.81 -76.74 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0E534C17 20180325_120000 39.03 -76.82 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 0E54ABB9 20180325_120000 39.57 -77.72 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 0E9BEE16 20180325_120000 39.33 -76.55 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 0EE6D992 20180325_120000 41.98 -70.02 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 0EE779BC 20180325_120000 41.68 -71.17 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 0EE779BE 20180325_120000 41.65 -70.90 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 0EE7C3F1 20180325_120000 41.33 -70.79 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 0EE819E6 20180325_120000 42.47 -70.97 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 0EE8259D 20180325_120000 42.77 -71.10 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 0EE86805 20180325_120000 42.61 -72.60 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 0EE8AE58 20180325_120000 42.19 -72.56 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 0EE90C12 20180325_120000 42.30 -72.33 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 0EE94A99 20180325_120000 42.63 -71.36 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0EE9F28B 20180325_120000 42.21 -71.11 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0EEA34F5 20180325_120000 42.07 -71.01 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 0EEA833A 20180325_120000 42.33 -71.08 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 0EEAD13F 20180325_120000 42.27 -71.88 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 0EEAD148 20180325_120000 42.10 -71.62 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 0F800C53 20180325_120000 42.77 -86.15 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 0F822F33 20180325_120000 44.62 -86.11 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0F827D5E 20180325_120000 42.20 -86.31 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 0F8367B3 20180325_120000 41.90 -86.00 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 0F84EE52 20180325_120000 42.80 -84.35 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0F86C325 20180325_120000 43.03 -83.67 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 0F86CAE1 20180325_120000 43.17 -83.46 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 0F88E5F7 20180325_120000 43.84 -82.64 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 0F89341C 20180325_120000 42.74 -84.54 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0F8B08D8 20180325_120000 42.28 -85.54 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0F8BA524 20180325_120000 42.98 -85.67 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 0F8BA526 20180325_120000 43.18 -85.42 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 0F8D2BB7 20180325_120000 42.00 -83.95 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 0F8E6439 20180325_120000 42.73 -82.79 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0F8E681B 20180325_120000 42.55 -83.01 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 0F8EB5EA 20180325_120000 44.31 -86.24 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 0F8F4E97 20180325_120000 43.95 -86.29 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 0F908711 20180325_120000 44.31 -84.89 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 0F91BFB7 20180325_120000 43.28 -86.31 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 0F925BD1 20180325_120000 42.46 -83.18 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 0F947EB5 20180325_120000 42.89 -85.85 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 0F95B735 20180325_120000 42.95 -82.46 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0F96A191 20180325_120000 46.29 -85.95 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0F9764D7 20180325_120000 43.61 -83.36 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 0F97DA18 20180325_120000 42.24 -83.60 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 0F980117 20180325_120000 42.42 -83.90 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 0F982831 20180325_120000 42.23 -83.21 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 0F982843 20180325_120000 42.43 -83.00 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0F989D57 20180325_120000 44.18 -85.74 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 10185899 20180325_120000 45.40 -93.20 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 1018589A 20180325_120000 45.14 -93.21 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 1018AAAD 20180325_120000 46.85 -95.85 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 101A9489 20180325_120000 46.71 -92.51 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000046
AIRNOW 101D4334 20180325_120000 46.39 -94.14 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 101F6E46 20180325_120000 44.47 -93.01 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 101FF992 20180325_120000 44.97 -93.26 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 10235135 20180325_120000 47.95 -91.50 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 10249A22 20180325_120000 44.46 -95.84 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 10266A5B 20180325_120000 46.21 -93.76 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 102894E0 20180325_120000 43.99 -92.45 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 102CC732 20180325_120000 48.41 -92.83 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000045
AIRNOW 102CE48E 20180325_120000 46.82 -92.09 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 102D1729 20180325_120000 44.79 -93.51 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 102E0B7C 20180325_120000 45.55 -94.13 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 1030D630 20180325_120000 45.17 -92.77 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 103203B1 20180325_120000 45.21 -93.67 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 10B223B2 20180325_120000 33.75 -90.73 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 10B57F12 20180325_120000 34.83 -89.99 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 10B753D3 20180325_120000 30.30 -89.40 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000018
AIRNOW 10B7A1F8 20180325_120000 30.39 -89.05 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 10B7F024 20180325_120000 32.33 -90.18 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 10B7F025 20180325_120000 32.35 -90.23 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 10B976B6 20180325_120000 30.38 -88.53 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 10BBE7B3 20180325_120000 32.36 -88.73 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 10BCD215 20180325_120000 34.26 -88.76 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 10C92E17 20180325_120000 34.00 -89.80 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 114981B1 20180325_120000 39.95 -94.85 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 114BF2BB 20180325_120000 39.08 -92.32 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 114D2B32 20180325_120000 38.71 -92.09 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 114EB1D3 20180325_120000 38.76 -94.58 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 114EFFF1 20180325_120000 37.70 -94.03 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 11503873 20180325_120000 39.41 -94.27 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 11503875 20180325_120000 39.30 -94.38 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 11503876 20180325_120000 39.33 -94.58 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 1154CC74 20180325_120000 37.26 -93.30 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 1154CC7A 20180325_120000 37.32 -93.20 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 1157D994 20180325_120000 37.24 -94.42 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 115827C3 20180325_120000 38.45 -90.40 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 115A4A94 20180325_120000 39.05 -90.85 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 115DF411 20180325_120000 39.48 -91.79 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 1164FCDC 20180325_120000 38.90 -90.45 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 1165E35E 20180325_120000 38.71 -90.48 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 1196DEB5 20180325_120000 38.66 -90.20 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 11E5C1B6 20180325_120000 47.05 -109.46 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 11E62F11 20180325_120000 48.51 -114.00 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 11E91D14 20180325_120000 46.85 -111.99 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 11EB4008 20180325_120000 46.84 -114.02 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000006
AIRNOW 11EC787A 20180325_120000 48.32 -107.86 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000046
AIRNOW 11ED14B1 20180325_120000 45.44 -105.37 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 11EE4D32 20180325_120000 47.87 -104.68 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 11EEE971 20180325_120000 45.37 -106.49 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000020
AIRNOW 12829E03 20180325_120000 41.25 -95.97 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 128AB437 20180325_120000 42.83 -97.85 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 128ADB60 20180325_120000 40.98 -96.67 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 1312F712 20180325_120000 39.47 -118.78 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 1313455B 20180325_120000 36.11 -115.25 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 13134577 20180325_120000 36.17 -115.26 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 13134579 20180325_120000 36.17 -115.33 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 1313457B 20180325_120000 36.27 -115.24 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 1313465A 20180325_120000 36.05 -115.05 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000047
AIRNOW 1313474C 20180325_120000 36.14 -115.08 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000046
AIRNOW 13134789 20180325_120000 35.98 -114.85 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000048
AIRNOW 1313492B 20180325_120000 35.79 -115.36 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000049
AIRNOW 13136470 20180325_120000 36.36 -115.36 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 1315B636 20180325_120000 39.60 -119.25 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000046
AIRNOW 13178B00 20180325_120000 39.53 -119.81 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000046
AIRNOW 13178B04 20180325_120000 39.47 -119.78 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 13178B09 20180325_120000 39.40 -119.74 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 13178EDD 20180325_120000 39.54 -119.75 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000045
AIRNOW 13178EDF 20180325_120000 39.62 -119.72 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 131792C2 20180325_120000 39.25 -119.96 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000046
AIRNOW 131792C9 20180325_120000 39.65 -119.84 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 1317D975 20180325_120000 39.01 -114.22 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000049
AIRNOW 1360A1F4 20180325_120000 39.14 -119.77 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000050
AIRNOW 13AB9564 20180325_120000 43.57 -71.50 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000046
AIRNOW 13AC29D7 20180325_120000 42.93 -72.27 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 13AC8792 20180325_120000 44.31 -71.22 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 13ACC61A 20180325_120000 43.63 -72.31 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 13ACED17 20180325_120000 43.95 -71.70 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 13AD1823 20180325_120000 42.72 -71.52 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 13AD27B9 20180325_120000 42.86 -71.88 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 13AD663F 20180325_120000 43.22 -71.51 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 13ADB07E 20180325_120000 43.08 -70.75 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 13ADB080 20180325_120000 43.05 -70.71 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 13ADB082 20180325_120000 42.86 -71.38 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 14442416 20180325_120000 39.46 -74.45 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 14447236 20180325_120000 40.87 -73.99 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 14450E72 20180325_120000 39.93 -75.13 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 14451259 20180325_120000 39.68 -74.86 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 1445AAB7 20180325_120000 39.42 -75.03 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 1445F8D3 20180325_120000 40.72 -74.19 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 144646F2 20180325_120000 39.80 -75.21 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 14469516 20180325_120000 40.67 -74.13 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 1446E331 20180325_120000 40.52 -74.81 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 14473155 20180325_120000 40.28 -74.74 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 14475857 20180325_120000 40.31 -74.87 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 14477F7B 20180325_120000 40.46 -74.43 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 1447CD95 20180325_120000 40.28 -74.01 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 14482769 20180325_120000 40.79 -74.68 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 1448CB79 20180325_120000 41.06 -74.26 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 144A3E97 20180325_120000 40.92 -75.07 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 14DCBAA7 20180325_120000 35.14 -106.58 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000020
AIRNOW 14DCBAAD 20180325_120000 35.02 -106.65 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000017
AIRNOW 14DCBE84 20180325_120000 35.19 -106.51 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 14DE8F58 20180325_120000 31.93 -106.63 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000014
AIRNOW 14DE8F64 20180325_120000 32.04 -106.41 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000021
AIRNOW 14DE8F65 20180325_120000 31.80 -106.58 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 14DE8F66 20180325_120000 31.79 -106.68 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000018
AIRNOW 14DE8F67 20180325_120000 32.32 -106.77 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000009
AIRNOW 14DEE15D 20180325_120000 32.38 -104.26 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000021
AIRNOW 14E06418 20180325_120000 32.73 -103.12 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000023
AIRNOW 14E2870A 20180325_120000 36.19 -106.70 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000047
AIRNOW 14E32719 20180325_120000 35.30 -106.55 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000018
AIRNOW 14E37159 20180325_120000 36.74 -107.98 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000014
AIRNOW 14E37162 20180325_120000 36.81 -107.65 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 14E3753D 20180325_120000 36.80 -108.47 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 14E40DA5 20180325_120000 35.62 -106.08 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 14E5E258 20180325_120000 34.81 -106.74 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000019
AIRNOW 1575511C 20180325_120000 42.68 -73.76 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 1575EDBE 20180325_120000 40.82 -73.90 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000022
AIRNOW 1575EDD5 20180325_120000 40.87 -73.88 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 157725D6 20180325_120000 42.50 -79.32 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 157948B7 20180325_120000 41.79 -73.69 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 157996D2 20180325_120000 42.99 -78.78 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 1579E4F3 20180325_120000 44.36 -73.90 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 157A0BF7 20180325_120000 43.97 -74.22 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 157B6B95 20180325_120000 43.46 -74.52 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 157BB9B5 20180325_120000 43.69 -74.99 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 157C07D2 20180325_120000 44.09 -75.97 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 157D925F 20180325_120000 43.15 -77.55 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 157E7957 20180325_120000 40.82 -73.95 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 157ECADE 20180325_120000 43.22 -78.48 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 157F6727 20180325_120000 43.05 -76.06 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 158012F9 20180325_120000 41.52 -74.21 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 15809BB3 20180325_120000 43.28 -76.46 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 158137F5 20180325_120000 41.46 -73.71 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 1581868C 20180325_120000 40.74 -73.82 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 15827075 20180325_120000 41.18 -74.03 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 15830CB4 20180325_120000 43.01 -73.65 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 15849353 20180325_120000 42.10 -77.21 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 1584E172 20180325_120000 40.74 -73.41 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 1584E174 20180325_120000 40.96 -72.71 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 1584E179 20180325_120000 40.83 -73.06 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 1585F2D7 20180325_120000 42.40 -76.65 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 15871009 20180325_120000 43.23 -77.17 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 15875A44 20180325_120000 41.05 -73.76 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 160E35B5 20180325_120000 35.91 -81.19 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 160F6E32 20180325_120000 35.97 -81.93 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000047
AIRNOW 1610F4EE 20180325_120000 35.50 -82.60 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 1611DF33 20180325_120000 35.94 -81.53 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 1612A277 20180325_120000 34.88 -76.62 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000049
AIRNOW 1612C991 20180325_120000 36.30 -79.47 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 161588B8 20180325_120000 35.16 -78.73 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 161588BA 20180325_120000 35.00 -78.99 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 16175D7F 20180325_120000 35.99 -78.90 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 16175DD3 20180325_120000 35.89 -78.87 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 1617ABF3 20180325_120000 35.99 -77.59 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 1617F9C6 20180325_120000 36.11 -80.23 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 1617F9CE 20180325_120000 36.03 -80.34 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 1617FDA0 20180325_120000 36.05 -80.14 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 16193231 20180325_120000 35.26 -83.80 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000048
AIRNOW 16198051 20180325_120000 36.14 -78.77 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 161A1C9D 20180325_120000 36.11 -79.80 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 161B06F8 20180325_120000 35.51 -82.96 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000015
AIRNOW 161B0713 20180325_120000 35.38 -82.79 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 161B0714 20180325_120000 35.59 -83.08 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 161D29D2 20180325_120000 35.50 -78.44 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 161DC612 20180325_120000 35.43 -79.29 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 161E1434 20180325_120000 35.24 -77.57 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000048
AIRNOW 161E6254 20180325_120000 35.44 -81.28 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 161F2597 20180325_120000 35.06 -83.43 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 161F9AD1 20180325_120000 35.81 -76.91 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000047
AIRNOW 161FE919 20180325_120000 35.24 -80.78 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 161FE91E 20180325_120000 35.31 -80.71 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 1620AC37 20180325_120000 35.26 -79.84 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 16216F92 20180325_120000 34.36 -77.86 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 1623E093 20180325_120000 36.31 -79.09 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 16242EB6 20180325_120000 35.64 -77.36 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 1625B5B3 20180325_120000 36.31 -79.86 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 16260385 20180325_120000 35.55 -80.39 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 16282652 20180325_120000 35.44 -83.44 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 162910B3 20180325_120000 34.97 -80.54 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 1629ACFE 20180325_120000 35.86 -78.57 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 16A76872 20180325_120000 46.95 -103.51 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 16A852D4 20180325_120000 48.64 -102.40 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 16A8A0F3 20180325_120000 46.83 -100.77 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 16A8F2FC 20180325_120000 46.93 -96.85 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 16AA2793 20180325_120000 47.32 -102.53 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000023
AIRNOW 16AE6D52 20180325_120000 47.60 -103.26 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 16AF0994 20180325_120000 47.30 -101.77 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 16B04212 20180325_120000 47.19 -101.43 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 16B5C053 20180325_120000 47.94 -101.57 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 16B65C93 20180325_120000 48.15 -103.64 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000017
AIRNOW 173F62B9 20180325_120000 40.77 -84.05 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 174002D9 20180325_120000 41.96 -80.57 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 174185A2 20180325_120000 39.53 -84.39 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 174185A7 20180325_120000 39.38 -84.54 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 1741AC97 20180325_120000 39.53 -84.73 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 17426FF1 20180325_120000 40.00 -83.80 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 17426FF3 20180325_120000 39.86 -84.00 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 1742BE26 20180325_120000 39.08 -84.14 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 1743101A 20180325_120000 39.43 -83.79 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 174444D2 20180325_120000 41.56 -81.58 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 174444EC 20180325_120000 41.49 -81.68 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 174444F0 20180325_120000 41.36 -81.86 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 1744583A 20180325_120000 41.54 -81.46 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 17452F12 20180325_120000 40.36 -83.06 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 17464077 20180325_120000 39.64 -83.26 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 174667AD 20180325_120000 40.08 -82.82 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 174667E1 20180325_120000 40.09 -82.96 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 174751F4 20180325_120000 41.52 -81.25 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 1747A016 20180325_120000 39.67 -83.94 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 17483C56 20180325_120000 39.28 -84.37 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 17483C5A 20180325_120000 39.21 -84.69 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 17483C78 20180325_120000 39.13 -84.50 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 174B49A1 20180325_120000 40.37 -80.62 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 174BE5D3 20180325_120000 41.67 -81.42 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 174BE5D7 20180325_120000 41.73 -81.24 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 174C33FB 20180325_120000 38.63 -82.46 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 174C33FC 20180325_120000 38.51 -82.66 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 174C8215 20180325_120000 40.03 -82.43 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 174C8218 20180325_120000 39.95 -82.76 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 174D1E62 20180325_120000 41.42 -82.10 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 174D6C88 20180325_120000 41.64 -83.55 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 174D6C8B 20180325_120000 41.49 -83.72 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 174D6C93 20180325_120000 41.67 -83.29 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 174DBA97 20180325_120000 39.79 -83.48 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 174E08BD 20180325_120000 41.10 -80.66 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 174EA4F4 20180325_120000 41.06 -81.92 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 174F8F55 20180325_120000 40.08 -84.11 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 17502BB5 20180325_120000 39.79 -84.13 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 17518B17 20180325_120000 39.94 -81.34 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 17533CB9 20180325_120000 41.18 -81.33 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 17538AD9 20180325_120000 39.84 -84.72 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 1755F800 20180325_120000 40.83 -81.38 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 1755F806 20180325_120000 40.71 -81.60 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 17560795 20180325_120000 40.93 -81.12 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 17564624 20180325_120000 41.11 -81.50 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 1756943B 20180325_120000 41.24 -80.66 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 1756943D 20180325_120000 41.45 -80.59 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 17581AD7 20180325_120000 39.43 -84.20 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 175868F4 20180325_120000 39.43 -81.46 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 17595353 20180325_120000 41.38 -83.61 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 17D7CE41 20180325_120000 35.75 -94.67 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000022
AIRNOW 17D9814C 20180325_120000 33.95 -96.41 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 17DA1C75 20180325_120000 35.48 -97.75 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 17DBA2E1 20180325_120000 35.32 -97.49 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 17DC417B 20180325_120000 34.63 -98.43 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 17DD29E0 20180325_120000 36.11 -96.36 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 17DE170C 20180325_120000 36.16 -98.94 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000023
AIRNOW 17E1BFCF 20180325_120000 34.23 -98.04 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 17E4CEA1 20180325_120000 35.16 -97.47 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 17E67446 20180325_120000 36.23 -95.25 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 17E78A5F 20180325_120000 36.92 -95.63 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000018
AIRNOW 17E825F1 20180325_120000 35.48 -97.49 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 17E82630 20180325_120000 35.48 -97.30 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 17E829DD 20180325_120000 35.61 -97.47 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 17E8C2F2 20180325_120000 36.36 -96.01 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000021
AIRNOW 17E93373 20180325_120000 36.80 -94.72 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000016
AIRNOW 17E9FC2F 20180325_120000 34.91 -95.79 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 17EC40AD 20180325_120000 35.41 -94.52 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000023
AIRNOW 17ED569E 20180325_120000 35.95 -96.00 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000023
AIRNOW 17ED56A2 20180325_120000 36.13 -95.76 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000019
AIRNOW 17ED5A57 20180325_120000 36.21 -95.98 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000019
AIRNOW 1877E300 20180325_120000 45.50 -122.60 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000020
AIRNOW 187A53B5 20180325_120000 45.40 -122.75 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000016
AIRNOW 1908D811 20180325_120000 39.92 -77.31 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 1908FF17 20180325_120000 39.92 -77.31 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 19092638 20180325_120000 40.47 -79.96 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 19092673 20180325_120000 40.38 -80.19 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 19092A20 20180325_120000 40.61 -79.73 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 19097451 20180325_120000 40.81 -79.57 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 1909C272 20180325_120000 40.56 -80.50 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 1909C275 20180325_120000 40.68 -80.36 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 1909C27E 20180325_120000 40.75 -80.32 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 190A5EB6 20180325_120000 40.51 -75.79 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 190A5EBB 20180325_120000 40.38 -75.97 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 190AAFF1 20180325_120000 40.52 -78.39 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 190AFAFB 20180325_120000 41.71 -76.51 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 190B491C 20180325_120000 40.11 -74.88 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 190BE55B 20180325_120000 40.31 -78.92 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 190CD014 20180325_120000 40.81 -77.88 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 190CF6B7 20180325_120000 40.72 -77.93 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 190D1E34 20180325_120000 39.83 -75.77 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 190DC9B0 20180325_120000 41.12 -78.53 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 190F4241 20180325_120000 40.25 -76.85 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 190F44FC 20180325_120000 40.27 -76.68 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 190F8ED2 20180325_120000 39.84 -75.37 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 191003F7 20180325_120000 41.60 -78.77 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 19102B13 20180325_120000 42.14 -80.04 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 19111571 20180325_120000 39.96 -77.48 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 1911B1B2 20180325_120000 39.82 -80.29 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 19124DF4 20180325_120000 40.56 -78.92 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 191338B5 20180325_120000 41.48 -75.58 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 19134026 20180325_120000 41.44 -75.62 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 19138677 20180325_120000 40.05 -76.28 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 1913867C 20180325_120000 40.04 -76.11 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 1913D49F 20180325_120000 41.00 -80.35 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 19142314 20180325_120000 40.34 -76.38 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 191470D4 20180325_120000 40.61 -75.43 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 1914C33D 20180325_120000 41.27 -75.85 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 19150D74 20180325_120000 41.25 -76.92 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 1915A9B4 20180325_120000 41.22 -80.48 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 1915D057 20180325_120000 41.43 -80.15 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 19173009 20180325_120000 40.63 -75.34 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 19181A54 20180325_120000 40.09 -75.10 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 19181A68 20180325_120000 40.08 -75.01 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 19181A80 20180325_120000 39.99 -75.08 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 1919C7F7 20180325_120000 39.99 -79.25 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 191A9AF0 20180325_120000 41.64 -76.94 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 191BC3D5 20180325_120000 40.15 -79.90 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 191BD759 20180325_120000 40.44 -80.42 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 191C6018 20180325_120000 40.31 -79.51 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 191CFC58 20180325_120000 39.97 -76.70 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 191CFC5B 20180325_120000 39.86 -76.46 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 1A3A5332 20180325_120000 41.62 -71.72 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 1A3AF362 20180325_120000 41.84 -71.36 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 1A3B3D97 20180325_120000 41.49 -71.42 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 1AD2E9B3 20180325_120000 33.34 -81.79 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 1AD385F5 20180325_120000 34.62 -82.53 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 1AD4BE72 20180325_120000 32.99 -79.94 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 1AD55ADE 20180325_120000 32.94 -79.66 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 1AD64511 20180325_120000 34.62 -80.20 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 1AD6E152 20180325_120000 33.01 -80.96 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 1AD72F73 20180325_120000 34.29 -79.74 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 1AD819D1 20180325_120000 33.74 -81.85 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 1AD95260 20180325_120000 34.75 -82.26 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 1ADA3CB8 20180325_120000 33.80 -78.99 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 1ADD9811 20180325_120000 34.81 -83.24 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 1ADE3452 20180325_120000 34.65 -82.84 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 1ADE3453 20180325_120000 34.85 -82.74 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 1ADE8277 20180325_120000 34.09 -80.96 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 1ADE8285 20180325_120000 33.81 -80.78 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 1ADE8659 20180325_120000 34.13 -80.87 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 1ADF1EB9 20180325_120000 34.99 -82.08 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 1AE05738 20180325_120000 34.98 -81.21 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 1B6CB8B3 20180325_120000 44.35 -96.81 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 1B701494 20180325_120000 43.56 -103.48 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 1B75E071 20180325_120000 43.75 -101.94 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 1B793BD1 20180325_120000 44.16 -103.32 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000019
AIRNOW 1B7A2638 20180325_120000 43.55 -96.70 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 1B7E6BF1 20180325_120000 42.75 -96.71 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 1C03C8F5 20180325_120000 35.97 -84.22 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 1C050175 20180325_120000 35.63 -83.94 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 1C050176 20180325_120000 35.60 -83.78 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 1C079917 20180325_120000 36.47 -83.83 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 1C0946DB 20180325_120000 36.20 -86.74 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 1C0946EA 20180325_120000 36.15 -86.62 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 1C0A0A17 20180325_120000 36.04 -85.73 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 1C0D9083 20180325_120000 35.14 -85.17 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 1C0D9C33 20180325_120000 35.10 -85.16 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 1C113612 20180325_120000 36.11 -83.60 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 1C11D265 20180325_120000 36.09 -83.76 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 1C11D64C 20180325_120000 36.02 -83.88 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 1C13A77D 20180325_120000 35.72 -84.34 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 1C1B4895 20180325_120000 35.70 -83.61 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 1C1B9665 20180325_120000 35.22 -90.02 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 1C1B969B 20180325_120000 35.15 -89.85 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 1C1B9A3C 20180325_120000 35.38 -89.83 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 1C1C8882 20180325_120000 36.54 -82.43 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 1C1C8883 20180325_120000 36.58 -82.49 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 1C1CCED7 20180325_120000 36.30 -86.65 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 1C202A9A 20180325_120000 35.95 -87.14 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 1C2078B7 20180325_120000 36.06 -86.29 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 1CA05AC5 20180325_120000 31.12 -97.43 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 1CA05AC7 20180325_120000 31.09 -97.68 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 1CA0A4F0 20180325_120000 29.51 -98.62 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 1CA0A504 20180325_120000 29.63 -98.57 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 1CA0A50B 20180325_120000 29.28 -98.31 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 1CA22F5C 20180325_120000 29.52 -95.39 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000019
AIRNOW 1CA22F68 20180325_120000 29.04 -95.47 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 1CA2C815 20180325_120000 29.30 -103.18 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 1CA58ACF 20180325_120000 26.20 -97.71 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 1CA93055 20180325_120000 33.13 -96.79 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 1CAD7655 20180325_120000 32.82 -96.86 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 1CAD765B 20180325_120000 32.92 -96.81 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 1CAD7667 20180325_120000 32.68 -96.87 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000021
AIRNOW 1CAEAEB2 20180325_120000 33.19 -97.19 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 1CAEB298 20180325_120000 33.41 -96.94 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 1CB16DC0 20180325_120000 32.48 -97.03 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000021
AIRNOW 1CB171C4 20180325_120000 32.18 -96.87 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000022
AIRNOW 1CB1BBF5 20180325_120000 31.77 -106.50 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000010
AIRNOW 1CB1BBFC 20180325_120000 31.77 -106.46 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000015
AIRNOW 1CB1BC07 20180325_120000 31.75 -106.40 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000018
AIRNOW 1CB1BC09 20180325_120000 31.67 -106.29 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000002
AIRNOW 1CB1BC0A 20180325_120000 31.89 -106.43 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000013
AIRNOW 1CB5B77A 20180325_120000 29.26 -94.86 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 1CB82471 20180325_120000 32.38 -94.71 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000015
AIRNOW 1CBAE3A8 20180325_120000 29.90 -95.33 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000016
AIRNOW 1CBAE3AA 20180325_120000 29.80 -95.13 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000022
AIRNOW 1CBAE3AD 20180325_120000 30.04 -95.67 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000011
AIRNOW 1CBAE3BE 20180325_120000 29.83 -95.28 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000004
AIRNOW 1CBAE3BF 20180325_120000 29.83 -95.49 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000014
AIRNOW 1CBAE3C7 20180325_120000 29.70 -95.50 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000023
AIRNOW 1CBAE3CE 20180325_120000 29.63 -95.27 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000011
AIRNOW 1CBAE3D2 20180325_120000 29.72 -95.64 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 1CBAE530 20180325_120000 29.69 -95.29 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000017
AIRNOW 1CBAE787 20180325_120000 29.76 -95.08 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000023
AIRNOW 1CBAE789 20180325_120000 29.82 -94.98 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 1CBAE79A 20180325_120000 29.77 -95.22 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000018
AIRNOW 1CBAE79B 20180325_120000 29.73 -95.26 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 1CBAE79F 20180325_120000 29.67 -95.13 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000021
AIRNOW 1CBAE7AA 20180325_120000 29.58 -95.02 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000015
AIRNOW 1CBB31B2 20180325_120000 32.67 -94.17 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000015
AIRNOW 1CBD069B 20180325_120000 26.23 -98.29 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 1CBDF0D1 20180325_120000 32.44 -97.80 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000004
AIRNOW 1CBF7B5E 20180325_120000 33.15 -96.12 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 1CC19A59 20180325_120000 30.04 -94.07 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000020
AIRNOW 1CC19A5B 20180325_120000 29.89 -93.99 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000021
AIRNOW 1CC19A66 20180325_120000 29.86 -94.32 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 1CC19AB5 20180325_120000 29.72 -93.90 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 1CC19AB6 20180325_120000 29.94 -94.00 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 1CC19E5B 20180325_120000 29.98 -94.01 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000019
AIRNOW 1CC284B3 20180325_120000 32.35 -97.44 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000014
AIRNOW 1CC36F15 20180325_120000 32.56 -96.32 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000016
AIRNOW 1CCB625D 20180325_120000 31.65 -97.07 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 1CCFF27E 20180325_120000 30.35 -95.42 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000019
AIRNOW 1CD17CEB 20180325_120000 32.03 -96.40 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 1CD26349 20180325_120000 27.77 -97.43 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 1CD2634A 20180325_120000 27.83 -97.56 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 1CD35179 20180325_120000 30.08 -93.76 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 1CD43841 20180325_120000 32.87 -97.91 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 1CD54957 20180325_120000 30.67 -94.67 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000020
AIRNOW 1CD681D7 20180325_120000 34.88 -101.66 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 1CD8CBD1 20180325_120000 32.94 -96.46 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 1CDCC377 20180325_120000 32.34 -95.42 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 1CDF34BB 20180325_120000 32.99 -97.48 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 1CDF385A 20180325_120000 32.81 -97.36 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000011
AIRNOW 1CDF3C43 20180325_120000 32.92 -97.28 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 1CDF4031 20180325_120000 32.98 -97.06 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 1CDF4033 20180325_120000 32.66 -97.09 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000021
AIRNOW 1CE1575E 20180325_120000 30.35 -97.76 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 1CE15764 20180325_120000 30.48 -97.87 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000023
AIRNOW 1CE3C853 20180325_120000 28.84 -97.01 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 1CE54F00 20180325_120000 27.52 -99.52 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000019
AIRNOW 1D3543B3 20180325_120000 41.49 -112.02 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 1D35E3DB 20180325_120000 39.60 -110.77 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 1D367C34 20180325_120000 40.90 -111.89 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000006
AIRNOW 1D36CA52 20180325_120000 40.29 -110.01 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000019
AIRNOW 1D36E5B3 20180325_120000 40.22 -110.18 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 1D3802D5 20180325_120000 37.75 -113.06 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000052
AIRNOW 1D3A316E 20180325_120000 40.73 -111.87 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000000
AIRNOW 1D3A3175 20180325_120000 40.50 -112.04 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000046
AIRNOW 1D3A7435 20180325_120000 38.46 -109.82 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000046
AIRNOW 1D3BAC54 20180325_120000 40.60 -112.35 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000022
AIRNOW 1D3BFE5A 20180325_120000 40.44 -109.30 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 1D3BFE5C 20180325_120000 40.46 -109.56 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 1D3C0242 20180325_120000 40.20 -109.35 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 1D3C0243 20180325_120000 40.05 -109.69 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000023
AIRNOW 1D3C15DE 20180325_120000 40.48 -109.91 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 1D3C5C22 20180325_120000 40.14 -111.66 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000021
AIRNOW 1D3CE4D7 20180325_120000 37.18 -113.30 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 1D3CE552 20180325_120000 37.20 -113.15 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 1D3D8112 20180325_120000 41.21 -111.97 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000007
AIRNOW 1D3D84FB 20180325_120000 41.30 -111.99 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000015
AIRNOW 1DCDDA34 20180325_120000 42.89 -73.25 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 1DCE7677 20180325_120000 44.53 -72.87 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 1DD09952 20180325_120000 43.61 -72.98 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 1E6670B1 20180325_120000 38.08 -78.50 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 1E67F764 20180325_120000 38.86 -77.06 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 1E6B0491 20180325_120000 38.20 -77.38 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 1E6B79C2 20180325_120000 37.34 -77.26 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 1E6C3D14 20180325_120000 37.36 -77.59 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000021
AIRNOW 1E6EFC4E 20180325_120000 38.77 -77.11 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 1E6F4A52 20180325_120000 38.47 -77.77 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 1E7082DA 20180325_120000 39.28 -78.08 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 1E72F3D3 20180325_120000 37.61 -77.22 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 1E7341FE 20180325_120000 37.56 -77.40 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 1E76531D 20180325_120000 39.02 -77.49 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 1E7C90B7 20180325_120000 37.17 -78.31 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000022
AIRNOW 1E7D5419 20180325_120000 38.86 -77.64 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 1E7E907C 20180325_120000 37.29 -79.88 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 1E7EDAB3 20180325_120000 37.63 -79.51 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000009
AIRNOW 1E7F28D3 20180325_120000 38.48 -78.82 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 1E814BB1 20180325_120000 38.48 -77.37 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 1E840AD2 20180325_120000 36.89 -81.25 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000047
AIRNOW 1EC92A28 20180325_120000 37.10 -76.39 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 1EE00D84 20180325_120000 36.90 -76.44 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 1EE00D85 20180325_120000 36.67 -76.73 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 1F98881D 20180325_120000 48.29 -124.62 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 1F9C31E0 20180325_120000 47.57 -122.31 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000007
AIRNOW 1F9F3EDC 20180325_120000 46.78 -121.74 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 1F9FDB1B 20180325_120000 48.52 -122.61 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000021
AIRNOW 1F9FDB1F 20180325_120000 48.41 -122.34 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000001
AIRNOW 1FA24C15 20180325_120000 48.95 -122.55 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000007
AIRNOW 20303433 20180325_120000 39.47 -77.96 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 20316CB6 20180325_120000 38.43 -82.43 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 20331A57 20180325_120000 38.88 -80.85 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 20338F93 20180325_120000 37.91 -80.63 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000014
AIRNOW 20342BD9 20180325_120000 40.43 -80.59 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 2035B284 20180325_120000 38.35 -81.62 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000017
AIRNOW 20390DD3 20180325_120000 39.65 -79.92 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 203A465A 20180325_120000 40.11 -80.70 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 203E16D7 20180325_120000 39.09 -79.66 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000020
AIRNOW 2040169A 20180325_120000 39.33 -81.55 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 20C8CABA 20180325_120000 46.61 -90.70 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 20C9B52A 20180325_120000 44.53 -87.91 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 20CB89DF 20180325_120000 43.31 -89.11 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 20CC2639 20180325_120000 43.10 -89.36 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 20CC7431 20180325_120000 43.47 -88.62 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 20CCC254 20180325_120000 45.24 -86.99 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000046
AIRNOW 20CDACBE 20180325_120000 44.76 -91.41 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 20CE48F6 20180325_120000 43.69 -88.42 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 20CE9717 20180325_120000 45.56 -88.81 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000046
AIRNOW 20D0B9F9 20180325_120000 43.00 -88.83 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 20D15643 20180325_120000 42.50 -87.81 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000045
AIRNOW 20D15649 20180325_120000 42.60 -87.89 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000045
AIRNOW 20D1A452 20180325_120000 44.44 -87.51 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000045
AIRNOW 20D1F27C 20180325_120000 43.78 -91.22 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 20D32AF7 20180325_120000 44.14 -87.62 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000046
AIRNOW 20D3791C 20180325_120000 44.71 -89.77 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 20D4637A 20180325_120000 43.02 -87.93 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 20D4638A 20180325_120000 43.06 -87.91 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000045
AIRNOW 20D463C5 20180325_120000 43.18 -87.90 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 20D59BF9 20180325_120000 44.31 -88.40 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 20D5EA19 20180325_120000 43.50 -87.81 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000045
AIRNOW 20D7BEE4 20180325_120000 42.78 -87.80 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000046
AIRNOW 20D85B2E 20180325_120000 42.52 -89.06 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 20D94577 20180325_120000 43.44 -89.68 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 20DAA4F7 20180325_120000 45.21 -90.60 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 20DB6851 20180325_120000 46.05 -89.65 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000045
AIRNOW 20DBB675 20180325_120000 42.58 -88.50 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 20DCA0EB 20180325_120000 43.02 -88.21 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 2161131A 20180325_120000 41.30 -105.59 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 21613A17 20180325_120000 41.36 -106.24 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000051
AIRNOW 21616132 20180325_120000 44.28 -108.04 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 2161AFCB 20180325_120000 44.66 -105.29 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 2161B118 20180325_120000 44.15 -105.53 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 21624B9A 20180325_120000 43.10 -105.50 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 2162E833 20180325_120000 42.53 -108.72 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000046
AIRNOW 2165F514 20180325_120000 44.93 -106.85 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 2165F516 20180325_120000 44.80 -106.96 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000023
AIRNOW 21664393 20180325_120000 42.72 -109.75 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 21664394 20180325_120000 42.79 -110.05 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 21664395 20180325_120000 42.87 -109.87 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 216645EC 20180325_120000 42.49 -110.10 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 2166471A 20180325_120000 42.37 -109.56 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 21666A37 20180325_120000 42.93 -109.79 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000045
AIRNOW 2166919D 20180325_120000 41.16 -108.62 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000022
AIRNOW 21669218 20180325_120000 41.68 -108.02 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000018
AIRNOW 2166927C 20180325_120000 41.75 -109.79 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 2166DF78 20180325_120000 43.67 -110.60 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000046
AIRNOW 2166E363 20180325_120000 44.56 -110.40 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000050
AIRNOW 21672DF5 20180325_120000 41.37 -111.04 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 2167C9D3 20180325_120000 43.88 -104.19 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 2FB067A7 20180325_120000 19.47 -99.17 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000005
AIRNOW 2FB067B2 20180325_120000 19.30 -99.07 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000002
AIRNOW 2FB067B9 20180325_120000 19.37 -99.29 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000011
AIRNOW 2FB067BB 20180325_120000 19.36 -99.26 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000013
AIRNOW 2FB067CD 20180325_120000 19.38 -99.12 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000002
AIRNOW 2FB067D8 20180325_120000 19.36 -99.07 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000002
AIRNOW 2FB067F5 20180325_120000 19.33 -99.20 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000021
AIRNOW 2FB0682A 20180325_120000 19.41 -99.15 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000012
AIRNOW 2FB0683B 20180325_120000 19.42 -99.12 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000001
AIRNOW 2FB15273 20180325_120000 19.58 -99.25 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000005
AIRNOW 2FB152B9 20180325_120000 19.66 -99.10 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000002
AIRNOW 2FB152EB 20180325_120000 19.27 -98.89 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000001
AIRNOW 2FB1533C 20180325_120000 19.58 -99.04 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000001
AIRNOW 2FB1533D 20180325_120000 19.53 -99.03 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000000
AIRNOW 2FB1533E 20180325_120000 19.53 -99.08 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000003
AIRNOW 2FB1542B 20180325_120000 19.48 -99.24 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000006
AIRNOW 2FB15435 20180325_120000 19.39 -99.03 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000002
AIRNOW 2FB155A7 20180325_120000 19.72 -99.20 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000004
AIRNOW 2FB155CF 20180325_120000 19.46 -98.90 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000002
AIRNOW 2FB15602 20180325_120000 19.53 -99.12 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000002
AIRNOW 2FB15633 20180325_120000 19.60 -99.18 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000001
AIRNOW 2FB31EEC 20180325_120000 32.47 -114.77 NA COPO 3600 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 1623E093 20180325_120000 36.31 -79.09 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 16242EB6 20180325_120000 35.64 -77.36 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 1625B5B3 20180325_120000 36.31 -79.86 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 16260385 20180325_120000 35.55 -80.39 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 16282652 20180325_120000 35.44 -83.44 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 162910B3 20180325_120000 34.97 -80.54 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 1629ACFE 20180325_120000 35.86 -78.57 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 16A76872 20180325_120000 46.95 -103.51 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 16A852D4 20180325_120000 48.64 -102.40 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 16A8A0F3 20180325_120000 46.83 -100.77 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 16A8F2FC 20180325_120000 46.93 -96.85 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 16AA2793 20180325_120000 47.32 -102.53 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 16AE6D52 20180325_120000 47.60 -103.26 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 16AF0994 20180325_120000 47.30 -101.77 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 16B04212 20180325_120000 47.19 -101.43 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 16B5C053 20180325_120000 47.94 -101.57 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 16B65C93 20180325_120000 48.15 -103.64 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000021
AIRNOW 173F62B9 20180325_120000 40.77 -84.05 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 174002D9 20180325_120000 41.96 -80.57 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 174185A2 20180325_120000 39.53 -84.39 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 174185A7 20180325_120000 39.38 -84.54 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 1741AC97 20180325_120000 39.53 -84.73 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 17426FF1 20180325_120000 40.00 -83.80 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 17426FF3 20180325_120000 39.86 -84.00 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 1742BE26 20180325_120000 39.08 -84.14 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 1743101A 20180325_120000 39.43 -83.79 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 174444D2 20180325_120000 41.56 -81.58 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 174444EC 20180325_120000 41.49 -81.68 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 174444F0 20180325_120000 41.36 -81.86 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 1744583A 20180325_120000 41.54 -81.46 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 17452F12 20180325_120000 40.36 -83.06 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 17464077 20180325_120000 39.64 -83.26 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 174667AD 20180325_120000 40.08 -82.82 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 174667E1 20180325_120000 40.09 -82.96 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 174751F4 20180325_120000 41.52 -81.25 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 1747A016 20180325_120000 39.67 -83.94 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 17483C56 20180325_120000 39.28 -84.37 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 17483C5A 20180325_120000 39.21 -84.69 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 17483C78 20180325_120000 39.13 -84.50 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 174B49A1 20180325_120000 40.37 -80.62 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 174BE5D3 20180325_120000 41.67 -81.42 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 174BE5D7 20180325_120000 41.73 -81.24 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 174C33FB 20180325_120000 38.63 -82.46 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 174C33FC 20180325_120000 38.51 -82.66 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 174C8215 20180325_120000 40.03 -82.43 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 174C8218 20180325_120000 39.95 -82.76 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 174D1E62 20180325_120000 41.42 -82.10 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 174D6C88 20180325_120000 41.64 -83.55 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 174D6C8B 20180325_120000 41.49 -83.72 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 174D6C93 20180325_120000 41.67 -83.29 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 174DBA97 20180325_120000 39.79 -83.48 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 174E08BD 20180325_120000 41.10 -80.66 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 174EA4F4 20180325_120000 41.06 -81.92 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 174F8F55 20180325_120000 40.08 -84.11 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 17502BB5 20180325_120000 39.79 -84.13 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 17518B17 20180325_120000 39.94 -81.34 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 17533CB9 20180325_120000 41.18 -81.33 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 17538AD9 20180325_120000 39.84 -84.72 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 1755F800 20180325_120000 40.83 -81.38 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 1755F806 20180325_120000 40.71 -81.60 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 17560795 20180325_120000 40.93 -81.12 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 17564624 20180325_120000 41.11 -81.50 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 1756943B 20180325_120000 41.24 -80.66 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 1756943D 20180325_120000 41.45 -80.59 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 17581AD7 20180325_120000 39.43 -84.20 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 175868F4 20180325_120000 39.43 -81.46 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 17595353 20180325_120000 41.38 -83.61 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 17D7CE41 20180325_120000 35.75 -94.67 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 17D9814C 20180325_120000 33.95 -96.41 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 17DA1C75 20180325_120000 35.48 -97.75 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 17DBA2E1 20180325_120000 35.32 -97.49 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 17DC417B 20180325_120000 34.63 -98.43 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 17DD29E0 20180325_120000 36.11 -96.36 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 17DE170C 20180325_120000 36.16 -98.94 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 17E1BFCF 20180325_120000 34.23 -98.04 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 17E4CEA1 20180325_120000 35.16 -97.47 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 17E67446 20180325_120000 36.23 -95.25 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 17E78A5F 20180325_120000 36.92 -95.63 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000022
AIRNOW 17E825F1 20180325_120000 35.48 -97.49 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 17E82630 20180325_120000 35.48 -97.30 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 17E829DD 20180325_120000 35.61 -97.47 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 17E8C2F2 20180325_120000 36.36 -96.01 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 17E93373 20180325_120000 36.80 -94.72 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000021
AIRNOW 17E9FC2F 20180325_120000 34.91 -95.79 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 17EC40AD 20180325_120000 35.41 -94.52 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 17ED569E 20180325_120000 35.95 -96.00 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 17ED56A2 20180325_120000 36.13 -95.76 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 17ED5A57 20180325_120000 36.21 -95.98 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 1877E300 20180325_120000 45.50 -122.60 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000022
AIRNOW 187A53B5 20180325_120000 45.40 -122.75 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000017
AIRNOW 1908D811 20180325_120000 39.92 -77.31 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 1908FF17 20180325_120000 39.92 -77.31 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 19092638 20180325_120000 40.47 -79.96 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 19092673 20180325_120000 40.38 -80.19 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 19092A20 20180325_120000 40.61 -79.73 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 19097451 20180325_120000 40.81 -79.57 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 1909C272 20180325_120000 40.56 -80.50 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 1909C275 20180325_120000 40.68 -80.36 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 1909C27E 20180325_120000 40.75 -80.32 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 190A5EB6 20180325_120000 40.51 -75.79 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 190A5EBB 20180325_120000 40.38 -75.97 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 190AAFF1 20180325_120000 40.52 -78.39 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 190AFAFB 20180325_120000 41.71 -76.51 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 190B491C 20180325_120000 40.11 -74.88 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 190BE55B 20180325_120000 40.31 -78.92 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 190CD014 20180325_120000 40.81 -77.88 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 190CF6B7 20180325_120000 40.72 -77.93 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 190D1E34 20180325_120000 39.83 -75.77 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 190DC9B0 20180325_120000 41.12 -78.53 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 190F4241 20180325_120000 40.25 -76.85 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 190F44FC 20180325_120000 40.27 -76.68 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 190F8ED2 20180325_120000 39.84 -75.37 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 191003F7 20180325_120000 41.60 -78.77 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 19102B13 20180325_120000 42.14 -80.04 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 19111571 20180325_120000 39.96 -77.48 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 1911B1B2 20180325_120000 39.82 -80.29 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 19124DF4 20180325_120000 40.56 -78.92 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 191338B5 20180325_120000 41.48 -75.58 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 19134026 20180325_120000 41.44 -75.62 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 19138677 20180325_120000 40.05 -76.28 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 1913867C 20180325_120000 40.04 -76.11 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 1913D49F 20180325_120000 41.00 -80.35 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 19142314 20180325_120000 40.34 -76.38 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 191470D4 20180325_120000 40.61 -75.43 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 1914C33D 20180325_120000 41.27 -75.85 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 19150D74 20180325_120000 41.25 -76.92 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 1915A9B4 20180325_120000 41.22 -80.48 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 1915D057 20180325_120000 41.43 -80.15 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 19164592 20180325_120000 41.08 -75.33 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000047
AIRNOW 19173009 20180325_120000 40.63 -75.34 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 19181A54 20180325_120000 40.09 -75.10 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 19181A68 20180325_120000 40.08 -75.01 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 19181A80 20180325_120000 39.99 -75.08 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 1919C7F7 20180325_120000 39.99 -79.25 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 191A9AF0 20180325_120000 41.64 -76.94 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 191BC3D5 20180325_120000 40.15 -79.90 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 191BD759 20180325_120000 40.44 -80.42 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 191C6018 20180325_120000 40.31 -79.51 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 191CFC58 20180325_120000 39.97 -76.70 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 191CFC5B 20180325_120000 39.86 -76.46 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 1A3A5332 20180325_120000 41.62 -71.72 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 1A3AF362 20180325_120000 41.84 -71.36 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 1A3B3D97 20180325_120000 41.49 -71.42 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 1AD2E9B3 20180325_120000 33.34 -81.79 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 1AD385F5 20180325_120000 34.62 -82.53 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 1AD4BE72 20180325_120000 32.99 -79.94 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 1AD55ADE 20180325_120000 32.94 -79.66 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000045
AIRNOW 1AD64511 20180325_120000 34.62 -80.20 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 1AD6E152 20180325_120000 33.01 -80.96 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 1AD72F73 20180325_120000 34.29 -79.74 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 1AD819D1 20180325_120000 33.74 -81.85 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 1AD95260 20180325_120000 34.75 -82.26 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 1ADA3CB8 20180325_120000 33.80 -78.99 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 1ADD9811 20180325_120000 34.81 -83.24 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 1ADE3452 20180325_120000 34.65 -82.84 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 1ADE3453 20180325_120000 34.85 -82.74 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 1ADE8277 20180325_120000 34.09 -80.96 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 1ADE8285 20180325_120000 33.81 -80.78 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 1ADE8659 20180325_120000 34.13 -80.87 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 1ADF1EB9 20180325_120000 34.99 -82.08 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 1AE05738 20180325_120000 34.98 -81.21 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 1B6CB8B3 20180325_120000 44.35 -96.81 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000047
AIRNOW 1B701494 20180325_120000 43.56 -103.48 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 1B75E071 20180325_120000 43.75 -101.94 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 1B793BD1 20180325_120000 44.16 -103.32 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000018
AIRNOW 1B7A2638 20180325_120000 43.55 -96.70 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000047
AIRNOW 1B7E6BF1 20180325_120000 42.75 -96.71 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 1C03C8F5 20180325_120000 35.97 -84.22 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 1C050175 20180325_120000 35.63 -83.94 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 1C050176 20180325_120000 35.60 -83.78 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 1C079917 20180325_120000 36.47 -83.83 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 1C0946DB 20180325_120000 36.20 -86.74 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 1C0946EA 20180325_120000 36.15 -86.62 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 1C0A0A17 20180325_120000 36.04 -85.73 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 1C0D9083 20180325_120000 35.14 -85.17 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 1C0D9C33 20180325_120000 35.10 -85.16 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 1C113612 20180325_120000 36.11 -83.60 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 1C11D265 20180325_120000 36.09 -83.76 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 1C11D64C 20180325_120000 36.02 -83.88 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 1C13A77D 20180325_120000 35.72 -84.34 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 1C1B4895 20180325_120000 35.70 -83.61 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 1C1B9665 20180325_120000 35.22 -90.02 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 1C1B969B 20180325_120000 35.15 -89.85 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 1C1B9A3C 20180325_120000 35.38 -89.83 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 1C1C8882 20180325_120000 36.54 -82.43 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 1C1C8883 20180325_120000 36.58 -82.49 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 1C1CCED7 20180325_120000 36.30 -86.65 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 1C202A9A 20180325_120000 35.95 -87.14 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 1C2078B7 20180325_120000 36.06 -86.29 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 1CA05AC5 20180325_120000 31.12 -97.43 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 1CA05AC7 20180325_120000 31.09 -97.68 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 1CA0A4F0 20180325_120000 29.51 -98.62 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 1CA0A504 20180325_120000 29.63 -98.57 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 1CA0A50B 20180325_120000 29.28 -98.31 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 1CA22F5C 20180325_120000 29.52 -95.39 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 1CA22F68 20180325_120000 29.04 -95.47 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 1CA2C815 20180325_120000 29.30 -103.18 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 1CA58ACF 20180325_120000 26.20 -97.71 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 1CA93055 20180325_120000 33.13 -96.79 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 1CAD7655 20180325_120000 32.82 -96.86 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 1CAD765B 20180325_120000 32.92 -96.81 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 1CAD7667 20180325_120000 32.68 -96.87 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 1CAEAEB2 20180325_120000 33.19 -97.19 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 1CAEB298 20180325_120000 33.41 -96.94 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 1CB16DC0 20180325_120000 32.48 -97.03 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000022
AIRNOW 1CB171C4 20180325_120000 32.18 -96.87 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000013
AIRNOW 1CB1BBF5 20180325_120000 31.77 -106.50 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000021
AIRNOW 1CB1BBFC 20180325_120000 31.77 -106.46 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000019
AIRNOW 1CB1BC07 20180325_120000 31.75 -106.40 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000017
AIRNOW 1CB1BC09 20180325_120000 31.67 -106.29 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000007
AIRNOW 1CB1BC0A 20180325_120000 31.89 -106.43 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 1CB5B77A 20180325_120000 29.26 -94.86 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 1CB82471 20180325_120000 32.38 -94.71 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000015
AIRNOW 1CBAE3A8 20180325_120000 29.90 -95.33 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 1CBAE3AA 20180325_120000 29.80 -95.13 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 1CBAE3AD 20180325_120000 30.04 -95.67 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 1CBAE3BE 20180325_120000 29.83 -95.28 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000016
AIRNOW 1CBAE3BF 20180325_120000 29.83 -95.49 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 1CBAE3C7 20180325_120000 29.70 -95.50 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 1CBAE3CE 20180325_120000 29.63 -95.27 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000021
AIRNOW 1CBAE3D2 20180325_120000 29.72 -95.64 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 1CBAE530 20180325_120000 29.69 -95.29 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 1CBAE787 20180325_120000 29.76 -95.08 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 1CBAE789 20180325_120000 29.82 -94.98 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 1CBAE79A 20180325_120000 29.77 -95.22 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 1CBAE79B 20180325_120000 29.73 -95.26 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 1CBAE79F 20180325_120000 29.67 -95.13 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 1CBAE7AA 20180325_120000 29.58 -95.02 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 1CBB31B2 20180325_120000 32.67 -94.17 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000017
AIRNOW 1CBD069B 20180325_120000 26.23 -98.29 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 1CBDF0D1 20180325_120000 32.44 -97.80 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000009
AIRNOW 1CBF7B5E 20180325_120000 33.15 -96.12 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 1CC19A59 20180325_120000 30.04 -94.07 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000021
AIRNOW 1CC19A5B 20180325_120000 29.89 -93.99 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 1CC19A66 20180325_120000 29.86 -94.32 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 1CC19AB5 20180325_120000 29.72 -93.90 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 1CC19AB6 20180325_120000 29.94 -94.00 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 1CC19E5B 20180325_120000 29.98 -94.01 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000021
AIRNOW 1CC284B3 20180325_120000 32.35 -97.44 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000020
AIRNOW 1CC36F15 20180325_120000 32.56 -96.32 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000020
AIRNOW 1CCB625D 20180325_120000 31.65 -97.07 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000022
AIRNOW 1CCFF27E 20180325_120000 30.35 -95.42 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 1CD17CEB 20180325_120000 32.03 -96.40 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000023
AIRNOW 1CD26349 20180325_120000 27.77 -97.43 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 1CD2634A 20180325_120000 27.83 -97.56 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 1CD35179 20180325_120000 30.08 -93.76 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 1CD43841 20180325_120000 32.87 -97.91 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 1CD54957 20180325_120000 30.67 -94.67 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 1CD681D7 20180325_120000 34.88 -101.66 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 1CD8CBD1 20180325_120000 32.94 -96.46 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 1CDCC377 20180325_120000 32.34 -95.42 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000023
AIRNOW 1CDF34BB 20180325_120000 32.99 -97.48 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 1CDF385A 20180325_120000 32.81 -97.36 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000021
AIRNOW 1CDF3C43 20180325_120000 32.92 -97.28 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 1CDF4031 20180325_120000 32.98 -97.06 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 1CDF4033 20180325_120000 32.66 -97.09 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000015
AIRNOW 1CE1575E 20180325_120000 30.35 -97.76 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 1CE15764 20180325_120000 30.48 -97.87 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 1CE3C853 20180325_120000 28.84 -97.01 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 1CE54F00 20180325_120000 27.52 -99.52 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 1D3543B3 20180325_120000 41.49 -112.02 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 1D3591D7 20180325_120000 41.84 -111.85 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 1D35E3DB 20180325_120000 39.60 -110.77 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 1D367C34 20180325_120000 40.90 -111.89 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000016
AIRNOW 1D36CA52 20180325_120000 40.29 -110.01 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 1D36E5B3 20180325_120000 40.22 -110.18 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 1D3802D5 20180325_120000 37.75 -113.06 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000052
AIRNOW 1D3A316E 20180325_120000 40.73 -111.87 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000007
AIRNOW 1D3A3172 20180325_120000 40.80 -111.93 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000008
AIRNOW 1D3A3175 20180325_120000 40.50 -112.04 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 1D3A7435 20180325_120000 38.46 -109.82 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000048
AIRNOW 1D3BAC54 20180325_120000 40.60 -112.35 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 1D3BFE5A 20180325_120000 40.44 -109.30 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 1D3BFE5C 20180325_120000 40.46 -109.56 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 1D3C0242 20180325_120000 40.20 -109.35 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 1D3C0243 20180325_120000 40.05 -109.69 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 1D3C15DE 20180325_120000 40.48 -109.91 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 1D3C5C22 20180325_120000 40.14 -111.66 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 1D3CE4D7 20180325_120000 37.18 -113.30 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 1D3CE552 20180325_120000 37.20 -113.15 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000049
AIRNOW 1D3D8112 20180325_120000 41.21 -111.97 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000015
AIRNOW 1D3D84FB 20180325_120000 41.30 -111.99 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 1DCDDA34 20180325_120000 42.89 -73.25 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 1DCE7677 20180325_120000 44.53 -72.87 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000045
AIRNOW 1DD09952 20180325_120000 43.61 -72.98 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 1E6670B1 20180325_120000 38.08 -78.50 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 1E67F764 20180325_120000 38.86 -77.06 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000015
AIRNOW 1E6B0491 20180325_120000 38.20 -77.38 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 1E6B79C2 20180325_120000 37.34 -77.26 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 1E6C3D14 20180325_120000 37.36 -77.59 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 1E6EFC4E 20180325_120000 38.77 -77.11 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 1E6F4A52 20180325_120000 38.47 -77.77 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 1E7082DA 20180325_120000 39.28 -78.08 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 1E72F3D3 20180325_120000 37.61 -77.22 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000020
AIRNOW 1E7341FE 20180325_120000 37.56 -77.40 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000023
AIRNOW 1E76531D 20180325_120000 39.02 -77.49 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 1E7C90B7 20180325_120000 37.17 -78.31 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 1E7D5419 20180325_120000 38.86 -77.64 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 1E7E907C 20180325_120000 37.29 -79.88 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000016
AIRNOW 1E7EDAB3 20180325_120000 37.63 -79.51 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000013
AIRNOW 1E7F28D3 20180325_120000 38.48 -78.82 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000011
AIRNOW 1E814BB1 20180325_120000 38.48 -77.37 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000018
AIRNOW 1E840AD2 20180325_120000 36.89 -81.25 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 1EC92A28 20180325_120000 37.10 -76.39 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 1EE00D84 20180325_120000 36.90 -76.44 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 1EE00D85 20180325_120000 36.67 -76.73 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 1F98881D 20180325_120000 48.29 -124.62 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 1F9C31E0 20180325_120000 47.57 -122.31 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000010
AIRNOW 1F9F3EDC 20180325_120000 46.78 -121.74 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 1F9FDB1B 20180325_120000 48.52 -122.61 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000022
AIRNOW 1F9FDB1F 20180325_120000 48.41 -122.34 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000005
AIRNOW 1FA24C15 20180325_120000 48.95 -122.55 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000009
AIRNOW 20303433 20180325_120000 39.47 -77.96 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 20316CB6 20180325_120000 38.43 -82.43 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 20331A57 20180325_120000 38.88 -80.85 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 20338F93 20180325_120000 37.91 -80.63 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 20342BD9 20180325_120000 40.43 -80.59 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 2035B284 20180325_120000 38.35 -81.62 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 20390DD3 20180325_120000 39.65 -79.92 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 203A465A 20180325_120000 40.11 -80.70 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 203E16D7 20180325_120000 39.09 -79.66 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000022
AIRNOW 2040169A 20180325_120000 39.33 -81.55 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 20C8CABA 20180325_120000 46.61 -90.70 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 20C9B52A 20180325_120000 44.53 -87.91 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 20CB89DF 20180325_120000 43.31 -89.11 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 20CC2639 20180325_120000 43.10 -89.36 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 20CC7431 20180325_120000 43.47 -88.62 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 20CCC254 20180325_120000 45.24 -86.99 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000046
AIRNOW 20CDACBE 20180325_120000 44.76 -91.41 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 20CE48F6 20180325_120000 43.69 -88.42 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 20CE9717 20180325_120000 45.56 -88.81 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000046
AIRNOW 20D0B9F9 20180325_120000 43.00 -88.83 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 20D15643 20180325_120000 42.50 -87.81 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000046
AIRNOW 20D15649 20180325_120000 42.60 -87.89 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000046
AIRNOW 20D1A452 20180325_120000 44.44 -87.51 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000046
AIRNOW 20D1F27C 20180325_120000 43.78 -91.22 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 20D32AF7 20180325_120000 44.14 -87.62 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000046
AIRNOW 20D3791C 20180325_120000 44.71 -89.77 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 20D4637A 20180325_120000 43.02 -87.93 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 20D4638A 20180325_120000 43.06 -87.91 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 20D463C5 20180325_120000 43.18 -87.90 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 20D59BF9 20180325_120000 44.31 -88.40 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 20D5EA18 20180325_120000 43.34 -87.92 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 20D5EA19 20180325_120000 43.50 -87.81 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 20D7BEE4 20180325_120000 42.78 -87.80 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000046
AIRNOW 20D85B2E 20180325_120000 42.52 -89.06 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 20D94577 20180325_120000 43.44 -89.68 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 20DAA4F7 20180325_120000 45.21 -90.60 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000046
AIRNOW 20DB6851 20180325_120000 46.05 -89.65 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000046
AIRNOW 20DBB675 20180325_120000 42.58 -88.50 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 20DCA0EB 20180325_120000 43.02 -88.21 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 2161131A 20180325_120000 41.30 -105.59 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 21613A17 20180325_120000 41.36 -106.24 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000052
AIRNOW 21616132 20180325_120000 44.28 -108.04 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 2161AFCB 20180325_120000 44.66 -105.29 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 2161B118 20180325_120000 44.15 -105.53 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 21624B9A 20180325_120000 43.10 -105.50 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 2162E833 20180325_120000 42.53 -108.72 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000047
AIRNOW 216420B4 20180325_120000 41.18 -104.78 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 2165F514 20180325_120000 44.93 -106.85 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 2165F516 20180325_120000 44.80 -106.96 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 21664393 20180325_120000 42.72 -109.75 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 21664394 20180325_120000 42.79 -110.05 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 21664395 20180325_120000 42.87 -109.87 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 216645EC 20180325_120000 42.49 -110.10 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 2166471A 20180325_120000 42.37 -109.56 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 21666A37 20180325_120000 42.93 -109.79 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000048
AIRNOW 2166919D 20180325_120000 41.16 -108.62 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 21669218 20180325_120000 41.68 -108.02 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000021
AIRNOW 2166927C 20180325_120000 41.75 -109.79 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 2166DF78 20180325_120000 43.67 -110.60 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 2166E363 20180325_120000 44.56 -110.40 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000047
AIRNOW 21672DF5 20180325_120000 41.37 -111.04 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 2167C9D3 20180325_120000 43.88 -104.19 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 2FB067A7 20180325_120000 19.47 -99.17 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000017
AIRNOW 2FB067B2 20180325_120000 19.30 -99.07 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 2FB067B9 20180325_120000 19.37 -99.29 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000008
AIRNOW 2FB067BB 20180325_120000 19.36 -99.26 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000005
AIRNOW 2FB067CD 20180325_120000 19.38 -99.12 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000002
AIRNOW 2FB067D8 20180325_120000 19.36 -99.07 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000002
AIRNOW 2FB067F5 20180325_120000 19.33 -99.20 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000009
AIRNOW 2FB0682A 20180325_120000 19.41 -99.15 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 2FB0683B 20180325_120000 19.42 -99.12 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000008
AIRNOW 2FB15273 20180325_120000 19.58 -99.25 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000007
AIRNOW 2FB152B9 20180325_120000 19.66 -99.10 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000012
AIRNOW 2FB152EB 20180325_120000 19.27 -98.89 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000019
AIRNOW 2FB1533C 20180325_120000 19.58 -99.04 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000003
AIRNOW 2FB1533D 20180325_120000 19.53 -99.03 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000004
AIRNOW 2FB1533E 20180325_120000 19.53 -99.08 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000010
AIRNOW 2FB15435 20180325_120000 19.39 -99.03 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000002
AIRNOW 2FB155A7 20180325_120000 19.72 -99.20 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000014
AIRNOW 2FB155CF 20180325_120000 19.46 -98.90 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000015
AIRNOW 2FB15602 20180325_120000 19.53 -99.12 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000023
AIRNOW 2FB15633 20180325_120000 19.60 -99.18 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000003
AIRNOW 2FB31EEC 20180325_120000 32.47 -114.77 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 00002905 20180325_120000 49.02 -55.80 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 00002969 20180325_120000 53.30 -60.36 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 00002A31 20180325_120000 50.71 -57.36 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 00004E88 20180325_120000 46.24 -63.13 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 00004F4D 20180325_120000 46.48 -63.99 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 000075A8 20180325_120000 44.72 -63.48 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 00007666 20180325_120000 46.14 -60.17 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 00007725 20180325_120000 44.43 -65.21 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 000077ED 20180325_120000 45.01 -65.00 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 00007851 20180325_120000 43.83 -66.08 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 000078B5 20180325_120000 45.68 -62.70 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0000797D 20180325_120000 45.04 -64.29 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 00009D0B 20180325_120000 45.31 -66.01 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 00009D0F 20180325_120000 45.25 -66.08 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 00009D6E 20180325_120000 46.11 -64.79 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 00009FC5 20180325_120000 45.09 -67.08 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000045
AIRNOW 0000A0F1 20180325_120000 47.07 -65.42 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 0000A156 20180325_120000 47.61 -65.63 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 0000C3C1 20180325_120000 45.55 -73.75 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0000C3C7 20180325_120000 45.52 -73.49 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0000C41C 20180325_120000 45.44 -75.73 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0000C484 20180325_120000 46.82 -71.22 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0000C487 20180325_120000 46.77 -71.37 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 0000C4E4 20180325_120000 45.41 -71.87 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 0000C5AC 20180325_120000 48.23 -78.98 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 0000C92D 20180325_120000 46.04 -72.66 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000046
AIRNOW 0000CB21 20180325_120000 46.44 -72.89 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0000CBE9 20180325_120000 45.44 -73.47 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 0000CC4D 20180325_120000 46.04 -74.48 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 0000CCB1 20180325_120000 45.62 -76.02 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 0000CFD1 20180325_120000 48.82 -72.74 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0000D035 20180325_120000 46.68 -71.97 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0000D099 20180325_120000 46.84 -71.62 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 0000D0FD 20180325_120000 47.01 -70.86 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 0000D161 20180325_120000 46.85 -70.45 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 0000D1C5 20180325_120000 45.82 -70.86 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 0000D229 20180325_120000 45.91 -71.95 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 0000D28D 20180325_120000 47.65 -72.29 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0000D3B9 20180325_120000 49.82 -74.98 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 0000D675 20180325_120000 45.37 -71.25 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 0000D6D9 20180325_120000 46.77 -75.43 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0000D8CD 20180325_120000 45.05 -72.86 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 0000EAC8 20180325_120000 45.43 -75.68 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 0000EB2C 20180325_120000 42.31 -83.04 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 0000EB90 20180325_120000 44.22 -76.52 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0000EC08 20180325_120000 43.66 -79.39 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 0000EC60 20180325_120000 43.26 -79.86 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 0000ECC2 20180325_120000 46.49 -81.00 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 0000ED25 20180325_120000 46.53 -84.31 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 0000EDE8 20180325_120000 42.97 -81.20 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 0000EE51 20180325_120000 42.99 -82.40 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0000EEB0 20180325_120000 44.30 -78.35 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 0000EF11 20180325_120000 45.03 -74.74 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 0000EF76 20180325_120000 43.16 -79.23 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 0000EFDA 20180325_120000 43.14 -80.30 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0000F03E 20180325_120000 43.44 -80.50 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 0000F231 20180325_120000 46.32 -79.45 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0000F425 20180325_120000 44.30 -81.58 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 0000F745 20180325_120000 45.22 -78.93 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 0000F8D5 20180325_120000 43.33 -81.74 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0000FA01 20180325_120000 49.66 -93.72 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000046
AIRNOW 0000FB91 20180325_120000 44.23 -79.78 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0000FDE9 20180325_120000 44.39 -79.39 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0000FF15 20180325_120000 42.67 -81.16 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0000FF79 20180325_120000 44.15 -77.40 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 00010109 20180325_120000 42.40 -82.21 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 0001016D 20180325_120000 54.45 -90.22 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000049
AIRNOW 00010235 20180325_120000 49.39 -82.12 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 000111E7 20180325_120000 49.95 -97.40 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 0001123B 20180325_120000 49.84 -99.92 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000045
AIRNOW 00013953 20180325_120000 52.14 -106.66 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 00014051 20180325_120000 55.50 -106.72 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 00016008 20180325_120000 53.50 -113.61 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 00016009 20180325_120000 53.55 -113.37 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 00016012 20180325_120000 53.55 -113.50 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 0001606E 20180325_120000 51.08 -114.14 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 000160BE 20180325_120000 52.30 -113.79 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 00016122 20180325_120000 50.05 -110.68 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 00016186 20180325_120000 49.72 -112.80 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 000161E9 20180325_120000 53.70 -113.22 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 000161EE 20180325_120000 53.80 -112.93 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 0001624D 20180325_120000 56.73 -111.39 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000021
AIRNOW 0001624E 20180325_120000 56.75 -111.48 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 000162B1 20180325_120000 57.19 -111.64 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000020
AIRNOW 000163DD 20180325_120000 53.68 -112.87 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 000164A5 20180325_120000 53.37 -115.19 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 00016509 20180325_120000 53.14 -115.14 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0001656D 20180325_120000 55.20 -119.40 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 000165D1 20180325_120000 53.61 -115.88 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 00016635 20180325_120000 53.13 -117.09 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 00016699 20180325_120000 58.71 -111.18 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 000166FD 20180325_120000 51.95 -114.70 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000047
AIRNOW 00016AE5 20180325_120000 53.59 -116.39 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 0001705D 20180325_120000 54.41 -110.23 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 000170C1 20180325_120000 54.22 -111.50 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0001870E 20180325_120000 49.28 -122.97 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000016
AIRNOW 00018717 20180325_120000 49.22 -122.99 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000016
AIRNOW 0001871D 20180325_120000 49.16 -122.90 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000003
AIRNOW 0001871F 20180325_120000 49.13 -122.69 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000014
AIRNOW 00018720 20180325_120000 49.14 -123.11 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000001
AIRNOW 00018724 20180325_120000 49.32 -123.08 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000021
AIRNOW 00018726 20180325_120000 49.19 -123.15 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000006
AIRNOW 00018727 20180325_120000 49.29 -122.79 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000004
AIRNOW 0001872C 20180325_120000 49.01 -123.08 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000015
AIRNOW 0001876A 20180325_120000 53.91 -122.74 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 000187D0 20180325_120000 48.43 -123.36 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000021
AIRNOW 0001895D 20180325_120000 49.86 -119.47 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 00018A8B 20180325_120000 49.04 -122.31 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000017
AIRNOW 00018A8D 20180325_120000 49.02 -122.33 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000011
AIRNOW 00018AED 20180325_120000 49.16 -121.94 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000004
AIRNOW 00018B52 20180325_120000 49.25 -122.71 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000010
AIRNOW 00018BB5 20180325_120000 49.10 -122.57 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000004
AIRNOW 00018C19 20180325_120000 49.37 -121.50 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000003
AIRNOW 00018C7D 20180325_120000 49.22 -122.58 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000013
AIRNOW 00018D45 20180325_120000 52.98 -122.49 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000014
AIRNOW 00018E71 20180325_120000 48.78 -123.13 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 00018ED6 20180325_120000 49.20 -123.99 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000020
AIRNOW 00019001 20180325_120000 54.78 -127.18 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 0001912D 20180325_120000 52.13 -122.15 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000019
AIRNOW 00019643 20180325_120000 50.23 -119.28 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000007
AIRNOW 00019A29 20180325_120000 50.14 -122.96 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 00990BBA 20180325_120000 30.49 -87.87 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 009DA37A 20180325_120000 34.76 -87.65 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 00A0FAFB 20180325_120000 33.90 -86.05 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 00A31DD4 20180325_120000 31.19 -85.42 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000047
AIRNOW 00A3BA27 20180325_120000 33.55 -86.82 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 00A3BDFB 20180325_120000 33.49 -86.91 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 00A3BDFD 20180325_120000 33.33 -87.00 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 00A3BE02 20180325_120000 33.55 -86.55 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 00A3CD9B 20180325_120000 33.80 -86.94 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 00A3D182 20180325_120000 33.58 -86.77 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 00A62B1E 20180325_120000 34.69 -86.59 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 00A76393 20180325_120000 30.77 -88.09 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 00A76B65 20180325_120000 30.47 -88.14 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 00A803BA 20180325_120000 32.41 -86.26 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000047
AIRNOW 00A84DFB 20180325_120000 34.53 -86.97 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 00AA70D4 20180325_120000 33.32 -86.83 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 00AABEF3 20180325_120000 32.36 -88.28 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 00ABA95A 20180325_120000 33.09 -87.46 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 0262EE71 20180325_120000 32.01 -109.39 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 02632140 20180325_120000 35.21 -111.65 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000045
AIRNOW 02633C91 20180325_120000 36.06 -112.15 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000045
AIRNOW 02636B7A 20180325_120000 33.65 -111.11 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000045
AIRNOW 02644E00 20180325_120000 34.24 -113.56 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 026455E3 20180325_120000 33.48 -112.14 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 026459BB 20180325_120000 33.41 -111.86 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 026459BC 20180325_120000 33.56 -112.07 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 026459C2 20180325_120000 33.45 -111.73 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 026459D6 20180325_120000 33.63 -111.68 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000022
AIRNOW 02645DA1 20180325_120000 33.57 -112.19 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 02645DA5 20180325_120000 33.71 -111.85 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 0264618A 20180325_120000 33.46 -112.05 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 0264618B 20180325_120000 33.48 -111.92 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000020
AIRNOW 02646573 20180325_120000 33.40 -112.07 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 02646574 20180325_120000 33.30 -111.88 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 02646575 20180325_120000 33.41 -111.93 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000017
AIRNOW 02646578 20180325_120000 33.82 -112.02 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0264657A 20180325_120000 33.64 -112.34 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 0264657B 20180325_120000 33.37 -112.62 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 0264712B 20180325_120000 33.29 -112.16 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 0264713C 20180325_120000 33.49 -111.85 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000021
AIRNOW 0264713D 20180325_120000 33.51 -111.75 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 0264713E 20180325_120000 33.47 -111.80 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 02647140 20180325_120000 33.51 -111.84 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000023
AIRNOW 02647AF4 20180325_120000 33.98 -111.80 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000049
AIRNOW 02647BB6 20180325_120000 33.55 -111.61 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 02647BB8 20180325_120000 33.61 -111.73 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 02647CDD 20180325_120000 33.50 -112.09 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 0264F287 20180325_120000 34.82 -109.89 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000049
AIRNOW 02654045 20180325_120000 32.18 -110.74 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 02654423 20180325_120000 32.21 -110.88 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000018
AIRNOW 0265442A 20180325_120000 32.43 -111.07 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 0265442C 20180325_120000 32.05 -110.77 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000016
AIRNOW 02654434 20180325_120000 32.30 -110.98 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000022
AIRNOW 02654436 20180325_120000 31.88 -111.00 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 02654438 20180325_120000 32.17 -110.98 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000012
AIRNOW 0265443A 20180325_120000 32.38 -111.13 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000010
AIRNOW 02659A09 20180325_120000 33.42 -111.50 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 02659A0B 20180325_120000 32.95 -111.76 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 0265A9A9 20180325_120000 33.08 -111.74 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 0265AD91 20180325_120000 33.29 -111.29 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 026697FB 20180325_120000 32.69 -114.61 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000046
AIRNOW 02FDFDB7 20180325_120000 34.18 -93.10 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000019
AIRNOW 030047B5 20180325_120000 35.20 -90.19 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 030A59D2 20180325_120000 35.83 -93.22 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 030C2E93 20180325_120000 34.45 -94.14 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 030D18F7 20180325_120000 34.76 -92.28 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 030D1CDA 20180325_120000 34.83 -92.26 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 0310C275 20180325_120000 36.18 -94.12 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 0310C276 20180325_120000 36.01 -94.17 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 0393AE17 20180325_120000 37.69 -121.78 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 0393AE19 20180325_120000 37.74 -122.17 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 0393AE1B 20180325_120000 37.81 -122.28 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000022
AIRNOW 0393AE1D 20180325_120000 37.86 -122.30 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000022
AIRNOW 0393B5E1 20180325_120000 37.65 -122.03 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 03944A52 20180325_120000 38.34 -120.76 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000016
AIRNOW 03949877 20180325_120000 39.71 -121.62 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 03949878 20180325_120000 39.76 -121.84 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 0395389A 20180325_120000 39.20 -122.02 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 039582D2 20180325_120000 37.94 -122.03 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 039586BA 20180325_120000 38.01 -121.64 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 039586BC 20180325_120000 37.96 -122.36 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 03958AA7 20180325_120000 37.74 -121.93 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 03961F1A 20180325_120000 38.73 -120.82 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 03966D37 20180325_120000 36.71 -119.74 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 03966D3B 20180325_120000 36.79 -119.77 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 03966E22 20180325_120000 36.84 -119.87 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 03967509 20180325_120000 36.63 -120.38 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 03967CD1 20180325_120000 36.60 -119.50 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 039680B9 20180325_120000 36.82 -119.72 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 0396BB53 20180325_120000 39.53 -122.19 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 03975795 20180325_120000 32.68 -115.48 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000047
AIRNOW 03975B7B 20180325_120000 32.79 -115.56 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 03976733 20180325_120000 33.03 -115.62 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000045
AIRNOW 03976734 20180325_120000 33.21 -115.54 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000020
AIRNOW 0397A5B2 20180325_120000 37.36 -118.33 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 0397A615 20180325_120000 36.51 -116.85 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000047
AIRNOW 0397F3D7 20180325_120000 35.35 -118.85 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 0397F3D8 20180325_120000 35.05 -119.40 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 0397F3DB 20180325_120000 35.05 -118.15 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000045
AIRNOW 0397F3DE 20180325_120000 35.36 -119.06 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 0397FBAC 20180325_120000 35.33 -119.00 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0398075A 20180325_120000 35.24 -118.79 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 03980B41 20180325_120000 35.50 -119.27 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 039845DC 20180325_120000 36.31 -119.64 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 03992C52 20180325_120000 34.14 -117.92 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 03992C60 20180325_120000 34.14 -117.85 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000022
AIRNOW 03992CC1 20180325_120000 34.05 -118.46 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000023
AIRNOW 0399309F 20180325_120000 34.07 -118.23 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 03993101 20180325_120000 34.20 -118.53 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000017
AIRNOW 03993166 20180325_120000 33.90 -118.21 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 03993292 20180325_120000 34.01 -118.07 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 039932F5 20180325_120000 34.07 -117.75 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 03993425 20180325_120000 34.13 -118.13 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 03993BF6 20180325_120000 33.80 -118.22 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 03993FDD 20180325_120000 33.96 -118.43 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 039943CC 20180325_120000 34.38 -118.53 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 03994F99 20180325_120000 34.67 -118.13 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 03997A74 20180325_120000 36.87 -120.01 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 0399824A 20180325_120000 36.95 -120.03 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 0399C891 20180325_120000 37.97 -122.52 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000021
AIRNOW 039A16B3 20180325_120000 37.71 -119.71 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 039A64D8 20180325_120000 39.15 -123.20 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 039AB2F3 20180325_120000 37.28 -120.43 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 039B9D52 20180325_120000 36.48 -121.73 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000019
AIRNOW 039B9D58 20180325_120000 36.21 -121.13 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 039BA13B 20180325_120000 36.69 -121.62 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 039BEB73 20180325_120000 38.31 -122.29 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000020
AIRNOW 039C3995 20180325_120000 39.23 -121.06 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 039C87B7 20180325_120000 33.83 -117.94 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 039C8F96 20180325_120000 33.63 -117.68 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 039C9B39 20180325_120000 33.93 -117.95 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 039CD5D2 20180325_120000 38.94 -121.10 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 039CD5D4 20180325_120000 39.10 -120.95 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 039CD5D6 20180325_120000 38.75 -121.27 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 039D721C 20180325_120000 33.92 -116.86 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 039D7220 20180325_120000 33.58 -117.07 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 039D79E2 20180325_120000 33.71 -116.22 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000051
AIRNOW 039D8599 20180325_120000 33.85 -116.54 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000050
AIRNOW 039D8981 20180325_120000 33.79 -117.23 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 039D9151 20180325_120000 34.00 -117.42 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 039D9155 20180325_120000 34.00 -117.49 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 039D9539 20180325_120000 33.68 -117.33 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 039D953B 20180325_120000 33.61 -114.60 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 039DC032 20180325_120000 38.71 -121.38 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 039DC036 20180325_120000 38.61 -121.37 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 039DC03A 20180325_120000 38.57 -121.49 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 039DC03B 20180325_120000 38.30 -121.42 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 039DC03C 20180325_120000 38.68 -121.16 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 039DD3BB 20180325_120000 38.49 -121.21 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 039E0E52 20180325_120000 36.84 -121.36 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 039E0E53 20180325_120000 36.49 -121.16 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000022
AIRNOW 039E5C71 20180325_120000 34.89 -117.02 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 039E5C75 20180325_120000 34.24 -117.27 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 039E5C7C 20180325_120000 34.43 -117.59 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 039E5DA2 20180325_120000 34.51 -117.33 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 039E6059 20180325_120000 35.10 -115.78 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000054
AIRNOW 039E605C 20180325_120000 34.10 -117.63 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 039E6142 20180325_120000 35.77 -117.37 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 039E6442 20180325_120000 34.10 -117.49 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 039E6C11 20180325_120000 34.42 -117.29 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 039E6C13 20180325_120000 34.06 -117.15 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 039E7F9A 20180325_120000 34.07 -116.39 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 039E7F9C 20180325_120000 34.11 -117.27 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 039EAA91 20180325_120000 32.63 -117.06 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 039EAE7E 20180325_120000 32.84 -116.77 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 039EAE86 20180325_120000 32.58 -116.93 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 039EAE88 20180325_120000 32.85 -117.12 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 039EAE8E 20180325_120000 32.79 -116.94 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000045
AIRNOW 039EF8B5 20180325_120000 37.77 -122.40 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000023
AIRNOW 039F4ABA 20180325_120000 37.95 -121.27 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 039F528D 20180325_120000 37.68 -121.44 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 039F94F5 20180325_120000 35.61 -120.66 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 039F9CC6 20180325_120000 35.26 -120.67 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 039FA0A9 20180325_120000 35.37 -120.84 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 039FA492 20180325_120000 35.03 -120.50 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 039FB432 20180325_120000 35.49 -120.67 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000020
AIRNOW 039FB435 20180325_120000 35.64 -120.23 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 039FB436 20180325_120000 35.35 -120.04 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 039FE6F9 20180325_120000 37.48 -122.20 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 03A03138 20180325_120000 34.46 -120.02 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000045
AIRNOW 03A0313B 20180325_120000 34.43 -119.69 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 03A03520 20180325_120000 34.95 -120.43 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 03A03525 20180325_120000 34.73 -120.43 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 03A03526 20180325_120000 34.54 -119.79 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 03A0352A 20180325_120000 34.53 -120.20 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 03A0352D 20180325_120000 34.40 -119.46 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000023
AIRNOW 03A03904 20180325_120000 34.64 -120.46 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000023
AIRNOW 03A03CE9 20180325_120000 34.61 -120.08 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 03A040D3 20180325_120000 34.60 -120.63 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000046
AIRNOW 03A07F52 20180325_120000 37.00 -121.57 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 03A07F55 20180325_120000 37.35 -121.89 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 03A08339 20180325_120000 37.23 -121.98 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 03A08726 20180325_120000 37.08 -121.60 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 03A0CD77 20180325_120000 36.99 -121.99 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 03A11B94 20180325_120000 40.55 -122.38 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 03A11B97 20180325_120000 40.45 -122.30 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 03A11B99 20180325_120000 40.69 -122.40 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000017
AIRNOW 03A1274B 20180325_120000 40.54 -121.58 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 03A1BFA1 20180325_120000 41.73 -122.63 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 03A205F4 20180325_120000 38.10 -122.24 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 03A205F5 20180325_120000 38.23 -122.08 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 03A211AA 20180325_120000 38.35 -121.96 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 03A25414 20180325_120000 38.40 -122.82 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000014
AIRNOW 03A2A235 20180325_120000 37.66 -120.99 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 03A2A236 20180325_120000 37.49 -120.84 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000014
AIRNOW 03A2F053 20180325_120000 39.14 -121.62 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 03A3DAB9 20180325_120000 36.49 -118.83 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 03A3E282 20180325_120000 36.33 -119.29 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 03A3E28A 20180325_120000 36.03 -119.05 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 03A428D5 20180325_120000 37.98 -120.38 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000022
AIRNOW 03A476F7 20180325_120000 34.21 -118.87 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 03A476F9 20180325_120000 34.40 -118.81 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000017
AIRNOW 03A47ADC 20180325_120000 34.45 -119.23 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000006
AIRNOW 03A47EC2 20180325_120000 34.28 -118.68 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 03A482A9 20180325_120000 34.27 -119.13 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000019
AIRNOW 03A4C514 20180325_120000 38.53 -121.77 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 03A4C8FB 20180325_120000 38.66 -121.73 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 04C5E0CC 20180325_120000 37.21 -107.25 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 04C6AFDE 20180325_120000 40.07 -105.22 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 04C96EF2 20180325_120000 39.75 -104.99 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000013
AIRNOW 04C96F0A 20180325_120000 39.78 -105.01 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000017
AIRNOW 04CA0B34 20180325_120000 39.53 -105.07 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 04CAF59D 20180325_120000 38.96 -104.82 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 04CAF5A0 20180325_120000 38.85 -104.90 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 04CB91DC 20180325_120000 39.54 -107.78 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000016
AIRNOW 04CCA337 20180325_120000 38.96 -106.99 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000050
AIRNOW 04CDB4B5 20180325_120000 39.64 -105.14 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 04CDB4B6 20180325_120000 39.91 -105.19 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 04CDB4BB 20180325_120000 39.74 -105.18 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 04CDB4BD 20180325_120000 39.54 -105.30 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000047
AIRNOW 04CF0889 20180325_120000 37.14 -107.63 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000021
AIRNOW 04CF088B 20180325_120000 37.10 -107.87 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 04CF3B57 20180325_120000 40.28 -105.55 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000053
AIRNOW 04CF3B5B 20180325_120000 40.59 -105.14 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 04CF3F3C 20180325_120000 40.58 -105.08 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000020
AIRNOW 04D11013 20180325_120000 40.33 -108.49 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 04D15E95 20180325_120000 37.20 -108.49 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000049
AIRNOW 04D46B75 20180325_120000 40.00 -107.85 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 04D778B9 20180325_120000 40.39 -104.74 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 055D71A1 20180325_120000 41.00 -73.59 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 055D75F3 20180325_120000 41.40 -73.44 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 055D7D4F 20180325_120000 41.15 -73.10 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 055D94BB 20180325_120000 41.12 -73.34 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 055DC39B 20180325_120000 41.78 -72.63 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 055E0DD5 20180325_120000 41.83 -73.30 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 055E7F1F 20180325_120000 41.55 -72.63 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 055EAA2B 20180325_120000 41.30 -72.90 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 055ECD3A 20180325_120000 41.26 -72.55 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 055EF8AC 20180325_120000 41.35 -72.08 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 055F4A39 20180325_120000 41.98 -72.39 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 055FBB77 20180325_120000 41.84 -72.01 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 05F60812 20180325_120000 38.98 -75.56 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 05F65A1F 20180325_120000 39.55 -75.73 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 05F65A22 20180325_120000 39.82 -75.56 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 05F65A25 20180325_120000 39.77 -75.50 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 05F65E04 20180325_120000 39.74 -75.56 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 05F6A83A 20180325_120000 38.64 -75.61 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000020
AIRNOW 05F6A83B 20180325_120000 38.78 -75.17 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 068E9EB9 20180325_120000 38.90 -76.96 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000008
AIRNOW 068E9EBC 20180325_120000 38.92 -77.01 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000019
AIRNOW 068E9EC2 20180325_120000 38.97 -77.02 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000013
AIRNOW 07278332 20180325_120000 30.20 -82.45 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0727D156 20180325_120000 30.13 -85.74 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000055
AIRNOW 07286D97 20180325_120000 28.05 -80.63 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 07287D31 20180325_120000 28.31 -80.62 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000050
AIRNOW 0728BBD1 20180325_120000 26.07 -80.34 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000012
AIRNOW 0728BBD2 20180325_120000 26.05 -80.26 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000013
AIRNOW 0728C383 20180325_120000 26.29 -80.10 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0728DAF2 20180325_120000 26.09 -80.11 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000049
AIRNOW 072A4254 20180325_120000 26.30 -81.72 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 072A9072 20180325_120000 30.18 -82.62 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 072BC93D 20180325_120000 30.48 -81.59 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000059
AIRNOW 072BC954 20180325_120000 30.26 -81.45 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000050
AIRNOW 072BC95A 20180325_120000 30.38 -81.84 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000058
AIRNOW 072C1714 20180325_120000 30.53 -87.20 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 072C1722 20180325_120000 30.37 -87.27 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000052
AIRNOW 072C6534 20180325_120000 29.49 -81.28 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 072F7273 20180325_120000 27.19 -81.34 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000049
AIRNOW 072FC0E1 20180325_120000 27.74 -82.47 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 072FC49B 20180325_120000 27.93 -82.45 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 072FC4B9 20180325_120000 27.89 -82.54 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 072FCC4A 20180325_120000 27.97 -82.23 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 07300EB4 20180325_120000 30.85 -85.60 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000045
AIRNOW 073083D7 20180325_120000 27.85 -80.46 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000045
AIRNOW 07319552 20180325_120000 28.53 -81.72 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 0731EB42 20180325_120000 26.55 -81.98 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0731EF2A 20180325_120000 26.45 -81.94 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 0732319C 20180325_120000 30.44 -84.35 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 0732F4D7 20180325_120000 30.11 -84.99 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 073375CA 20180325_120000 27.63 -82.55 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000019
AIRNOW 073379BC 20180325_120000 27.48 -82.62 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000023
AIRNOW 073379BD 20180325_120000 27.45 -82.52 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000016
AIRNOW 0733B833 20180325_120000 29.17 -82.10 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 0733B834 20180325_120000 29.19 -82.17 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 07340657 20180325_120000 27.17 -80.24 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 07342D7B 20180325_120000 25.73 -80.16 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000057
AIRNOW 07342D7D 20180325_120000 25.59 -80.33 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 0734F0B2 20180325_120000 30.42 -86.67 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000055
AIRNOW 07358CF8 20180325_120000 28.45 -81.38 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 073594C2 20180325_120000 28.60 -81.36 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 0735E2E2 20180325_120000 28.35 -81.64 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 07362945 20180325_120000 26.59 -80.06 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 07367755 20180325_120000 28.33 -82.31 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000020
AIRNOW 07367F21 20180325_120000 28.20 -82.76 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 0736C574 20180325_120000 27.97 -82.74 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 0736C582 20180325_120000 27.79 -82.74 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 0736D8FA 20180325_120000 28.09 -82.70 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000009
AIRNOW 07372B05 20180325_120000 27.94 -82.00 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000021
AIRNOW 07372B06 20180325_120000 28.03 -81.97 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0737FDFD 20180325_120000 27.39 -80.31 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 07384C1F 20180325_120000 30.39 -87.01 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000052
AIRNOW 07389E1D 20180325_120000 27.31 -82.57 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 07389E1E 20180325_120000 27.35 -82.48 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000010
AIRNOW 0738A202 20180325_120000 27.09 -82.36 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000016
AIRNOW 0738EC3A 20180325_120000 28.75 -81.31 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 073A76C1 20180325_120000 29.11 -80.99 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 073A827A 20180325_120000 29.21 -81.05 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 073ABD11 20180325_120000 30.08 -84.16 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000059
AIRNOW 07C2D8DC 20180325_120000 32.80 -83.54 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 07C76CC5 20180325_120000 32.07 -81.05 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000056
AIRNOW 07C808F1 20180325_120000 34.47 -85.41 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000016
AIRNOW 07C8A532 20180325_120000 33.92 -83.36 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 07C9DDB3 20180325_120000 34.01 -84.61 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 07CAC811 20180325_120000 33.58 -82.13 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 07CC9CD1 20180325_120000 34.38 -84.06 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 07CD3912 20180325_120000 33.69 -84.27 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 07CE7194 20180325_120000 33.74 -84.78 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 07D21B47 20180325_120000 33.72 -84.36 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 07D30576 20180325_120000 31.17 -81.50 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000055
AIRNOW 07D43DF2 20180325_120000 33.96 -84.07 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000005
AIRNOW 07D6AEF2 20180325_120000 33.43 -84.16 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 07E024D3 20180325_120000 34.78 -84.63 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 07E072F8 20180325_120000 32.52 -84.94 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000046
AIRNOW 07E30AF7 20180325_120000 33.18 -84.41 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 07E5072B 20180325_120000 33.43 -82.02 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 07E554F1 20180325_120000 33.59 -84.07 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 07E77BB9 20180325_120000 31.95 -84.08 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000049
AIRNOW 09898F1A 20180325_120000 43.60 -116.35 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 098CEAD5 20180325_120000 43.46 -113.56 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 09910917 20180325_120000 46.28 -116.02 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0A222597 20180325_120000 39.92 -91.34 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 0A24E4B7 20180325_120000 40.24 -88.19 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0A250BB7 20180325_120000 40.05 -88.37 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0A2580F1 20180325_120000 39.21 -87.67 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 0A26B971 20180325_120000 41.67 -87.73 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0A26B990 20180325_120000 41.76 -87.55 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 0A26BD5B 20180325_120000 41.98 -87.79 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 0A26BFB1 20180325_120000 41.67 -87.99 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 0A26C58F 20180325_120000 41.97 -87.88 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0A26C912 20180325_120000 41.86 -87.75 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0A26C917 20180325_120000 42.06 -87.86 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 0A26C9D9 20180325_120000 42.14 -87.80 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 0A26D4CA 20180325_120000 42.06 -87.67 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000045
AIRNOW 0A28A5A1 20180325_120000 41.81 -88.07 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 0A297C79 20180325_120000 39.07 -88.55 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0A2BE992 20180325_120000 38.09 -88.62 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 0A2EA925 20180325_120000 39.10 -90.34 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 0A2F1DD7 20180325_120000 42.29 -90.00 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 0A2F9315 20180325_120000 42.05 -88.27 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 0A30CF7F 20180325_120000 42.47 -87.81 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000047
AIRNOW 0A32EE71 20180325_120000 42.22 -88.24 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 0A334463 20180325_120000 40.52 -89.00 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0A338ABD 20180325_120000 39.87 -88.93 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 0A33D8D2 20180325_120000 39.40 -89.81 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 0A3426F8 20180325_120000 38.89 -90.15 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0A342AE1 20180325_120000 38.73 -89.96 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0A3432AF 20180325_120000 38.86 -90.11 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 0A344DF7 20180325_120000 38.87 -89.62 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 0A37D088 20180325_120000 40.69 -89.61 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0A37D459 20180325_120000 40.75 -89.59 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 0A39F351 20180325_120000 38.18 -89.79 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0A3A9B4A 20180325_120000 41.51 -90.52 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 0A3ADDBA 20180325_120000 38.61 -90.16 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0A3B79FE 20180325_120000 39.83 -89.64 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 0A4011C3 20180325_120000 41.22 -88.19 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 0A40B1E1 20180325_120000 42.34 -89.04 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 0ABB0A32 20180325_120000 41.22 -85.02 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0ABB0A34 20180325_120000 41.09 -85.10 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 0ABB5857 20180325_120000 39.29 -85.77 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0ABC42B1 20180325_120000 40.00 -86.40 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 0ABC90D1 20180325_120000 39.26 -86.29 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0ABCDEF2 20180325_120000 40.54 -86.55 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 0ABD7B38 20180325_120000 38.39 -85.66 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 0AC08877 20180325_120000 41.72 -85.82 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0AC1289C 20180325_120000 38.31 -85.83 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 0AC2F971 20180325_120000 38.99 -86.99 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0AC34796 20180325_120000 40.07 -85.99 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 0AC431F4 20180325_120000 39.76 -86.40 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 0AC51C52 20180325_120000 40.96 -85.38 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 0AC76637 20180325_120000 38.74 -87.49 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0AC829A6 20180325_120000 41.61 -87.30 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 0AC83168 20180325_120000 41.64 -87.49 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 0AC877B5 20180325_120000 41.72 -86.91 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 0AC877BA 20180325_120000 41.63 -86.68 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0AC913FA 20180325_120000 40.00 -85.66 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 0AC96242 20180325_120000 39.86 -86.02 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0AC96249 20180325_120000 39.75 -86.19 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 0AC9625E 20180325_120000 39.81 -86.11 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 0AC96267 20180325_120000 39.79 -86.13 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 0ACB36D5 20180325_120000 39.58 -86.48 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 0ACD59B9 20180325_120000 38.11 -86.60 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 0ACDF608 20180325_120000 41.62 -87.20 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000018
AIRNOW 0ACDF60A 20180325_120000 41.51 -87.04 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 0ACE4413 20180325_120000 38.01 -87.72 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 0AD018DA 20180325_120000 41.55 -86.37 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 0AD018DF 20180325_120000 41.70 -86.21 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0AD018E0 20180325_120000 41.75 -86.11 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 0AD0B511 20180325_120000 39.61 -85.87 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 0AD3743D 20180325_120000 38.11 -87.54 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 0AD41082 20180325_120000 39.49 -87.40 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0AD41088 20180325_120000 39.56 -87.33 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 0AD48597 20180325_120000 40.82 -85.66 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 0AD4FAD8 20180325_120000 38.05 -87.28 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 0AD4FADB 20180325_120000 37.95 -87.29 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 0B6469B1 20180325_120000 42.28 -91.53 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 0B6469B8 20180325_120000 41.98 -91.69 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0B681312 20180325_120000 40.97 -95.04 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 0B6A842E 20180325_120000 41.60 -93.64 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 0B6A8A3B 20180325_120000 41.85 -93.70 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0B6C0ABE 20180325_120000 41.70 -90.52 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 0B6E2D96 20180325_120000 40.69 -92.01 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 0BF9A4BA 20180325_120000 38.84 -94.75 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 0BFB7973 20180325_120000 39.33 -94.95 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 0C000D53 20180325_120000 37.68 -95.48 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 0C0627DA 20180325_120000 37.70 -97.31 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 0C0627E2 20180325_120000 37.90 -97.49 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 0C06C41D 20180325_120000 39.02 -95.71 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 0C08E6F2 20180325_120000 37.48 -97.37 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 0C098331 20180325_120000 38.77 -99.76 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 0C0BA625 20180325_120000 39.12 -94.64 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 0C865452 20180325_120000 36.61 -83.74 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 0C86A273 20180325_120000 38.92 -84.85 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0C873EC1 20180325_120000 38.46 -82.63 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 0C88C556 20180325_120000 37.99 -85.71 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 0C8A098A 20180325_120000 39.02 -84.47 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0C8AEA24 20180325_120000 38.24 -82.99 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 0C8B8476 20180325_120000 36.91 -87.32 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 0C8D5935 20180325_120000 37.78 -87.08 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 0C8DA945 20180325_120000 37.13 -86.15 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 0C8E91BC 20180325_120000 38.07 -84.50 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0C91ED17 20180325_120000 38.55 -82.73 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 0C928956 20180325_120000 37.71 -85.85 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 0C93C1DE 20180325_120000 37.87 -87.46 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 0C9548A3 20180325_120000 38.06 -85.90 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 0C9548B3 20180325_120000 38.23 -85.65 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 0C9548C0 20180325_120000 38.18 -85.57 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 0C959691 20180325_120000 37.89 -84.59 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 0C998E33 20180325_120000 37.16 -88.39 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0C9A7C90 20180325_120000 37.06 -88.57 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0C9F3377 20180325_120000 37.92 -83.07 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0CA09314 20180325_120000 38.40 -85.44 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 0CA1CB93 20180325_120000 37.28 -83.22 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 0CA219B2 20180325_120000 37.48 -82.54 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 0CA2B5F3 20180325_120000 37.10 -84.61 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 0CA4D8D4 20180325_120000 36.71 -86.57 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0CA6FBB9 20180325_120000 37.05 -86.21 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 0CA770D7 20180325_120000 37.70 -85.05 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0D1DB254 20180325_120000 30.23 -90.97 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 0D1F38F8 20180325_120000 32.54 -93.75 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000020
AIRNOW 0D1F8711 20180325_120000 32.68 -93.86 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000021
AIRNOW 0D1FD532 20180325_120000 30.14 -93.37 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 0D1FD539 20180325_120000 30.23 -93.58 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 0D21F813 20180325_120000 30.42 -91.18 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 0D21F819 20180325_120000 30.46 -91.18 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000009
AIRNOW 0D21F81D 20180325_120000 30.70 -91.06 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 0D241AF9 20180325_120000 30.22 -91.32 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0D241AFC 20180325_120000 30.20 -91.13 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000020
AIRNOW 0D24BB19 20180325_120000 30.04 -90.27 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000022
AIRNOW 0D255377 20180325_120000 30.23 -92.04 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 0D25A194 20180325_120000 29.76 -90.77 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000017
AIRNOW 0D268BF2 20180325_120000 30.32 -90.81 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000020
AIRNOW 0D281294 20180325_120000 32.51 -92.05 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000022
AIRNOW 0D28AED1 20180325_120000 30.68 -91.37 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000019
AIRNOW 0D2A3574 20180325_120000 29.94 -89.92 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000018
AIRNOW 0D2B1FD2 20180325_120000 30.00 -90.82 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000013
AIRNOW 0D2B6DF2 20180325_120000 30.05 -90.64 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000021
AIRNOW 0D2C0A31 20180325_120000 30.01 -91.87 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 0D2CA672 20180325_120000 30.43 -90.20 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 0D2F6591 20180325_120000 30.50 -91.21 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 0DB5AC9E 20180325_120000 43.97 -70.12 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 0DB5FEFC 20180325_120000 46.70 -68.03 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 0DB621B7 20180325_120000 46.60 -68.41 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 0DB648ED 20180325_120000 43.66 -70.27 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0DB650A3 20180325_120000 43.56 -70.21 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 0DB6E577 20180325_120000 44.38 -68.26 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000045
AIRNOW 0DB78154 20180325_120000 43.92 -69.26 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 0DB8294A 20180325_120000 44.38 -70.85 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 0DB87B58 20180325_120000 44.74 -68.67 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 0DB892B8 20180325_120000 45.20 -68.74 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 0DB9F263 20180325_120000 44.53 -67.60 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 0DB9F270 20180325_120000 44.96 -67.06 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000045
AIRNOW 0DBA4096 20180325_120000 43.66 -70.63 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 0DBA4098 20180325_120000 43.59 -70.88 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 0DBA4842 20180325_120000 43.34 -70.47 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 0E4E951B 20180325_120000 39.17 -76.63 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 0E4EE33F 20180325_120000 39.46 -76.63 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 0E4EEB09 20180325_120000 39.31 -76.47 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 0E4F7B9B 20180325_120000 38.54 -76.62 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 0E5017D1 20180325_120000 39.44 -77.04 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 0E5065F3 20180325_120000 39.70 -75.86 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 0E50B41A 20180325_120000 38.50 -76.81 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 0E510234 20180325_120000 38.59 -76.14 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 0E512937 20180325_120000 38.45 -76.11 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 0E515075 20180325_120000 39.42 -77.37 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 0E519E72 20180325_120000 39.71 -79.01 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000046
AIRNOW 0E51F079 20180325_120000 39.41 -76.30 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 0E520FB9 20180325_120000 39.56 -76.20 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 0E5288D2 20180325_120000 39.31 -75.80 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0E52E2A9 20180325_120000 39.11 -77.11 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 0E53252E 20180325_120000 39.06 -76.88 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000023
AIRNOW 0E534453 20180325_120000 38.81 -76.74 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000024
AIRNOW 0E534C17 20180325_120000 39.03 -76.82 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 0E54ABB9 20180325_120000 39.57 -77.72 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 0E9BEE16 20180325_120000 39.33 -76.55 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 0EE6D992 20180325_120000 41.98 -70.02 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 0EE779BC 20180325_120000 41.68 -71.17 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0EE779BE 20180325_120000 41.65 -70.90 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 0EE7C3F1 20180325_120000 41.33 -70.79 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 0EE819E6 20180325_120000 42.47 -70.97 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 0EE8259D 20180325_120000 42.77 -71.10 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0EE86805 20180325_120000 42.61 -72.60 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 0EE8AE58 20180325_120000 42.19 -72.56 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 0EE90C12 20180325_120000 42.30 -72.33 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 0EE94A99 20180325_120000 42.63 -71.36 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0EE9F28B 20180325_120000 42.21 -71.11 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 0EEA34F5 20180325_120000 42.07 -71.01 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0EEA833A 20180325_120000 42.33 -71.08 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 0EEAD13F 20180325_120000 42.27 -71.88 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 0EEAD148 20180325_120000 42.10 -71.62 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 0F800C53 20180325_120000 42.77 -86.15 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 0F822F33 20180325_120000 44.62 -86.11 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 0F827D5E 20180325_120000 42.20 -86.31 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 0F8367B3 20180325_120000 41.90 -86.00 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 0F84EE52 20180325_120000 42.80 -84.35 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0F86C325 20180325_120000 43.03 -83.67 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0F86CAE1 20180325_120000 43.17 -83.46 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 0F88E5F7 20180325_120000 43.84 -82.64 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 0F89341C 20180325_120000 42.74 -84.54 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 0F8B08D8 20180325_120000 42.28 -85.54 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 0F8BA524 20180325_120000 42.98 -85.67 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 0F8BA526 20180325_120000 43.18 -85.42 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 0F8D2BB7 20180325_120000 42.00 -83.95 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0F8E6439 20180325_120000 42.73 -82.79 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0F8E681B 20180325_120000 42.55 -83.01 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 0F8EB5EA 20180325_120000 44.31 -86.24 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 0F8F4E97 20180325_120000 43.95 -86.29 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 0F908711 20180325_120000 44.31 -84.89 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 0F91BFB7 20180325_120000 43.28 -86.31 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 0F925BD1 20180325_120000 42.46 -83.18 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 0F947EB5 20180325_120000 42.89 -85.85 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 0F95B735 20180325_120000 42.95 -82.46 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 0F96A191 20180325_120000 46.29 -85.95 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0F9764D7 20180325_120000 43.61 -83.36 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 0F97DA18 20180325_120000 42.24 -83.60 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 0F980117 20180325_120000 42.42 -83.90 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 0F982831 20180325_120000 42.23 -83.21 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 0F982843 20180325_120000 42.43 -83.00 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 0F989D57 20180325_120000 44.18 -85.74 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 10185899 20180325_120000 45.40 -93.20 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 1018589A 20180325_120000 45.14 -93.21 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 1018AAAD 20180325_120000 46.85 -95.85 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 101A9489 20180325_120000 46.71 -92.51 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 101D4334 20180325_120000 46.39 -94.14 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 101F6E46 20180325_120000 44.47 -93.01 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 101FF992 20180325_120000 44.97 -93.26 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 10235135 20180325_120000 47.95 -91.50 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 10249A22 20180325_120000 44.46 -95.84 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 10266A5B 20180325_120000 46.21 -93.76 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 102894E0 20180325_120000 43.99 -92.45 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 102CC732 20180325_120000 48.41 -92.83 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 102CE48E 20180325_120000 46.82 -92.09 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 102D1729 20180325_120000 44.79 -93.51 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 102E0B7C 20180325_120000 45.55 -94.13 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 1030D630 20180325_120000 45.17 -92.77 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 103203B1 20180325_120000 45.21 -93.67 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 10B223B2 20180325_120000 33.75 -90.73 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 10B57F12 20180325_120000 34.83 -89.99 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 10B753D3 20180325_120000 30.30 -89.40 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 10B7A1F8 20180325_120000 30.39 -89.05 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 10B7F024 20180325_120000 32.33 -90.18 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 10B7F025 20180325_120000 32.35 -90.23 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 10B976B6 20180325_120000 30.38 -88.53 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 10BBE7B3 20180325_120000 32.36 -88.73 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 10BCD215 20180325_120000 34.26 -88.76 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 10C92E17 20180325_120000 34.00 -89.80 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 114981B1 20180325_120000 39.95 -94.85 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 114BF2BB 20180325_120000 39.08 -92.32 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 114D2B32 20180325_120000 38.71 -92.09 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 114EB1D3 20180325_120000 38.76 -94.58 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 114EFFF1 20180325_120000 37.70 -94.03 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 11503873 20180325_120000 39.41 -94.27 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 11503875 20180325_120000 39.30 -94.38 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 11503876 20180325_120000 39.33 -94.58 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 11508691 20180325_120000 39.53 -94.56 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 1154CC74 20180325_120000 37.26 -93.30 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 1154CC7A 20180325_120000 37.32 -93.20 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 1157D994 20180325_120000 37.24 -94.42 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 115827C3 20180325_120000 38.45 -90.40 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 115A4A94 20180325_120000 39.05 -90.85 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 115DF411 20180325_120000 39.48 -91.79 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 11610151 20180325_120000 37.70 -89.70 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 1164FCDA 20180325_120000 38.87 -90.23 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 1164FCDC 20180325_120000 38.90 -90.45 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 11656E25 20180325_120000 37.90 -90.42 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 1165E355 20180325_120000 38.49 -90.71 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 1165E35E 20180325_120000 38.71 -90.48 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 1196DEB5 20180325_120000 38.66 -90.20 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 11E5C1B6 20180325_120000 47.05 -109.46 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 11E62F11 20180325_120000 48.51 -114.00 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 11E91D14 20180325_120000 46.85 -111.99 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 11EB4008 20180325_120000 46.84 -114.02 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000017
AIRNOW 11EC787A 20180325_120000 48.32 -107.86 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 11ED14B1 20180325_120000 45.44 -105.37 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 11EE4D32 20180325_120000 47.87 -104.68 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 11EEE971 20180325_120000 45.37 -106.49 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 12829E03 20180325_120000 41.25 -95.97 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 128AB437 20180325_120000 42.83 -97.85 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 128ADB60 20180325_120000 40.98 -96.67 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 1312F712 20180325_120000 39.47 -118.78 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000047
AIRNOW 1313455B 20180325_120000 36.11 -115.25 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000045
AIRNOW 13134577 20180325_120000 36.17 -115.26 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000048
AIRNOW 13134579 20180325_120000 36.17 -115.33 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000047
AIRNOW 1313457B 20180325_120000 36.27 -115.24 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 1313465A 20180325_120000 36.05 -115.05 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000049
AIRNOW 1313474C 20180325_120000 36.14 -115.08 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000048
AIRNOW 13134789 20180325_120000 35.98 -114.85 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000051
AIRNOW 1313492B 20180325_120000 35.79 -115.36 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000049
AIRNOW 13136470 20180325_120000 36.36 -115.36 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000045
AIRNOW 1315B636 20180325_120000 39.60 -119.25 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000046
AIRNOW 13178B00 20180325_120000 39.53 -119.81 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000047
AIRNOW 13178B04 20180325_120000 39.47 -119.78 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 13178B09 20180325_120000 39.40 -119.74 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000047
AIRNOW 13178EDD 20180325_120000 39.54 -119.75 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000047
AIRNOW 13178EDF 20180325_120000 39.62 -119.72 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 131792C2 20180325_120000 39.25 -119.96 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000048
AIRNOW 131792C9 20180325_120000 39.65 -119.84 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000047
AIRNOW 1317D975 20180325_120000 39.01 -114.22 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000050
AIRNOW 1360A1F4 20180325_120000 39.14 -119.77 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000051
AIRNOW 13AB9564 20180325_120000 43.57 -71.50 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 13AC29D7 20180325_120000 42.93 -72.27 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 13AC8792 20180325_120000 44.31 -71.22 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 13ACC61A 20180325_120000 43.63 -72.31 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 13ACED17 20180325_120000 43.95 -71.70 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 13AD1823 20180325_120000 42.72 -71.52 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 13AD27B9 20180325_120000 42.86 -71.88 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 13AD663F 20180325_120000 43.22 -71.51 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 13ADB07E 20180325_120000 43.08 -70.75 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 13ADB080 20180325_120000 43.05 -70.71 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 13ADB082 20180325_120000 42.86 -71.38 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 14442416 20180325_120000 39.46 -74.45 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 14447236 20180325_120000 40.87 -73.99 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 14450E72 20180325_120000 39.93 -75.13 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 14451259 20180325_120000 39.68 -74.86 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 1445AAB7 20180325_120000 39.42 -75.03 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 1445F8D3 20180325_120000 40.72 -74.19 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000033
AIRNOW 144646F2 20180325_120000 39.80 -75.21 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 14469516 20180325_120000 40.67 -74.13 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 1446E331 20180325_120000 40.52 -74.81 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 14473155 20180325_120000 40.28 -74.74 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 14475857 20180325_120000 40.31 -74.87 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 14477F7B 20180325_120000 40.46 -74.43 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 1447CD95 20180325_120000 40.28 -74.01 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000025
AIRNOW 14482769 20180325_120000 40.79 -74.68 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 1448CB79 20180325_120000 41.06 -74.26 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 144A3E97 20180325_120000 40.92 -75.07 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 14DCBAA7 20180325_120000 35.14 -106.58 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 14DCBAAD 20180325_120000 35.02 -106.65 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 14DCBE84 20180325_120000 35.19 -106.51 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 14DE8F58 20180325_120000 31.93 -106.63 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000016
AIRNOW 14DE8F64 20180325_120000 32.04 -106.41 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 14DE8F65 20180325_120000 31.80 -106.58 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000020
AIRNOW 14DE8F66 20180325_120000 31.79 -106.68 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000019
AIRNOW 14DE8F67 20180325_120000 32.32 -106.77 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000009
AIRNOW 14DEE15D 20180325_120000 32.38 -104.26 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000027
AIRNOW 14E06418 20180325_120000 32.73 -103.12 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000023
AIRNOW 14E2870A 20180325_120000 36.19 -106.70 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000046
AIRNOW 14E32719 20180325_120000 35.30 -106.55 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 14E37159 20180325_120000 36.74 -107.98 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 14E37162 20180325_120000 36.81 -107.65 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000045
AIRNOW 14E3753D 20180325_120000 36.80 -108.47 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 14E40DA5 20180325_120000 35.62 -106.08 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 14E5E258 20180325_120000 34.81 -106.74 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000028
AIRNOW 1575511C 20180325_120000 42.68 -73.76 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 1575EDBE 20180325_120000 40.82 -73.90 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000029
AIRNOW 1575EDD5 20180325_120000 40.87 -73.88 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 157725D6 20180325_120000 42.50 -79.32 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 157948B7 20180325_120000 41.79 -73.69 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000043
AIRNOW 157996D2 20180325_120000 42.99 -78.78 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 1579E4F3 20180325_120000 44.36 -73.90 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 157A0BF7 20180325_120000 43.97 -74.22 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 157B6B95 20180325_120000 43.46 -74.52 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 157BB9B5 20180325_120000 43.69 -74.99 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 157C07D2 20180325_120000 44.09 -75.97 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 157D925F 20180325_120000 43.15 -77.55 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 157E7957 20180325_120000 40.82 -73.95 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 157ECADE 20180325_120000 43.22 -78.48 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 157F6727 20180325_120000 43.05 -76.06 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 158012F9 20180325_120000 41.52 -74.21 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 15809BB3 20180325_120000 43.28 -76.46 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 158137F5 20180325_120000 41.46 -73.71 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 1581868C 20180325_120000 40.74 -73.82 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 15827075 20180325_120000 41.18 -74.03 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 15830CB4 20180325_120000 43.01 -73.65 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 15849353 20180325_120000 42.10 -77.21 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 1584E172 20180325_120000 40.74 -73.41 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 1584E174 20180325_120000 40.96 -72.71 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 1584E179 20180325_120000 40.83 -73.06 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000040
AIRNOW 1585F2D7 20180325_120000 42.40 -76.65 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 15871009 20180325_120000 43.23 -77.17 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 15875A44 20180325_120000 41.05 -73.76 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 160E35B5 20180325_120000 35.91 -81.19 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000031
AIRNOW 160F6E32 20180325_120000 35.97 -81.93 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000046
AIRNOW 160F9537 20180325_120000 36.11 -82.05 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000045
AIRNOW 1610F4EE 20180325_120000 35.50 -82.60 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 1611DF33 20180325_120000 35.94 -81.53 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 1612A277 20180325_120000 34.88 -76.62 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000047
AIRNOW 1612C991 20180325_120000 36.30 -79.47 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 161588B8 20180325_120000 35.16 -78.73 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 161588BA 20180325_120000 35.00 -78.99 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000042
AIRNOW 16175D7F 20180325_120000 35.99 -78.90 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 16175DD3 20180325_120000 35.89 -78.87 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 1617ABF3 20180325_120000 35.99 -77.59 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 1617F9C6 20180325_120000 36.11 -80.23 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000034
AIRNOW 1617F9CE 20180325_120000 36.03 -80.34 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000030
AIRNOW 1617FDA0 20180325_120000 36.05 -80.14 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000035
AIRNOW 16193231 20180325_120000 35.26 -83.80 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000047
AIRNOW 16198051 20180325_120000 36.14 -78.77 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 161A1C9D 20180325_120000 36.11 -79.80 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000036
AIRNOW 161B06F8 20180325_120000 35.51 -82.96 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000026
AIRNOW 161B0713 20180325_120000 35.38 -82.79 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000046
AIRNOW 161B0714 20180325_120000 35.59 -83.08 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000044
AIRNOW 161D29D2 20180325_120000 35.50 -78.44 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000041
AIRNOW 161DC612 20180325_120000 35.43 -79.29 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000038
AIRNOW 161E1434 20180325_120000 35.24 -77.57 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000047
AIRNOW 161E6254 20180325_120000 35.44 -81.28 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000032
AIRNOW 161F2597 20180325_120000 35.06 -83.43 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 161F9AD1 20180325_120000 35.81 -76.91 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000047
AIRNOW 161FE919 20180325_120000 35.24 -80.78 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 161FE91E 20180325_120000 35.31 -80.71 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000037
AIRNOW 1620AC37 20180325_120000 35.26 -79.84 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000039
AIRNOW 16216F92 20180325_120000 34.36 -77.86 NA COPO 28800 0 0
0.000000044
NULL
------------------------------------------------
Subject: verifying ozone
From: John Halley Gotway
Time: Wed Mar 28 15:08:24 2018
ANOWPM 00004E88 20180325_120000 46.24 -63.13 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000150
ANOWPM 00004F4D 20180325_120000 46.48 -63.99 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000080
ANOWPM 00004FB1 20180325_120000 46.39 -62.58 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000050
ANOWPM 000075F9 20180325_120000 45.61 -61.36 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 00007666 20180325_120000 46.14 -60.17 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000080
ANOWPM 00009D0B 20180325_120000 45.31 -66.01 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000050
ANOWPM 00009D0F 20180325_120000 45.25 -66.08 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000080
ANOWPM 00009D11 20180325_120000 45.28 -66.06 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000040
ANOWPM 00009D6E 20180325_120000 46.11 -64.79 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 00009FC5 20180325_120000 45.09 -67.08 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000090
ANOWPM 0000A156 20180325_120000 47.61 -65.63 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000060
ANOWPM 0000C487 20180325_120000 46.77 -71.37 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000080
ANOWPM 0000CC4D 20180325_120000 46.04 -74.48 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 0000D5AF 20180325_120000 46.35 -72.43 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000060
ANOWPM 0000EAC8 20180325_120000 45.43 -75.68 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000020
ANOWPM 0000EB2C 20180325_120000 42.31 -83.04 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 0000EB90 20180325_120000 44.22 -76.52 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000010
ANOWPM 0000EC08 20180325_120000 43.66 -79.39 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000040
ANOWPM 0000EC60 20180325_120000 43.26 -79.86 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 0000ECC2 20180325_120000 46.49 -81.00 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 0000ED25 20180325_120000 46.53 -84.31 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000020
ANOWPM 0000EDE8 20180325_120000 42.97 -81.20 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000040
ANOWPM 0000EE51 20180325_120000 42.99 -82.40 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 0000EEB0 20180325_120000 44.30 -78.35 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000020
ANOWPM 0000EF11 20180325_120000 45.03 -74.74 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 0000EF76 20180325_120000 43.16 -79.23 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000020
ANOWPM 0000EFDA 20180325_120000 43.14 -80.30 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000040
ANOWPM 0000F03E 20180325_120000 43.44 -80.50 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 0000F231 20180325_120000 46.32 -79.45 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000020
ANOWPM 0000F425 20180325_120000 44.30 -81.58 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 0000F745 20180325_120000 45.22 -78.93 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000010
ANOWPM 0000F8D5 20180325_120000 43.33 -81.74 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 0000FDE9 20180325_120000 44.39 -79.39 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000040
ANOWPM 0000FEB1 20180325_120000 45.34 -80.04 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 0000FF15 20180325_120000 42.67 -81.16 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000040
ANOWPM 0000FF79 20180325_120000 44.15 -77.40 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 00010109 20180325_120000 42.40 -82.21 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 0001123B 20180325_120000 49.84 -99.92 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000093
ANOWPM 00016008 20180325_120000 53.50 -113.61 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000070
ANOWPM 00016009 20180325_120000 53.55 -113.37 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000040
ANOWPM 00016012 20180325_120000 53.55 -113.50 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000070
ANOWPM 00016015 20180325_120000 53.56 -113.56 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000070
ANOWPM 0001606E 20180325_120000 51.08 -114.14 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000020
ANOWPM 000160BE 20180325_120000 52.30 -113.79 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000097
ANOWPM 00016122 20180325_120000 50.05 -110.68 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000093
ANOWPM 00016186 20180325_120000 49.72 -112.80 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000027
ANOWPM 000161E9 20180325_120000 53.70 -113.22 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000063
ANOWPM 000161EE 20180325_120000 53.80 -112.93 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000044
ANOWPM 0001624D 20180325_120000 56.73 -111.39 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000027
ANOWPM 0001624E 20180325_120000 56.75 -111.48 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000016
ANOWPM 000162B1 20180325_120000 57.19 -111.64 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000026
ANOWPM 000163DD 20180325_120000 53.68 -112.87 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000022
ANOWPM 000164A5 20180325_120000 53.37 -115.19 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000100
ANOWPM 0001656D 20180325_120000 55.20 -119.40 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000020
ANOWPM 00016635 20180325_120000 53.13 -117.09 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000000
ANOWPM 00016699 20180325_120000 58.71 -111.18 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000011
ANOWPM 000166FD 20180325_120000 51.95 -114.70 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000000
ANOWPM 0001705D 20180325_120000 54.41 -110.23 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000006
ANOWPM 000170C1 20180325_120000 54.22 -111.50 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000014
ANOWPM 0001870E 20180325_120000 49.28 -122.97 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000026
ANOWPM 0001870F 20180325_120000 49.28 -122.85 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000024
ANOWPM 0001871D 20180325_120000 49.16 -122.90 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000043
ANOWPM 0001876A 20180325_120000 53.91 -122.74 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000039
ANOWPM 000187D0 20180325_120000 48.43 -123.36 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000110
ANOWPM 00018A8D 20180325_120000 49.02 -122.33 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000097
ANOWPM 00018D45 20180325_120000 52.98 -122.49 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000057
ANOWPM 00018F9F 20180325_120000 49.89 -124.56 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000008
ANOWPM 00019001 20180325_120000 54.78 -127.18 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000067
ANOWPM 0001912D 20180325_120000 52.13 -122.15 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000070
ANOWPM 000195DD 20180325_120000 54.06 -128.67 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000050
ANOWPM 00019B55 20180325_120000 49.44 -123.49 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000060
ANOWPM 00A3BDFD 20180325_120000 33.33 -87.00 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000102
ANOWPM 00A3BE02 20180325_120000 33.55 -86.55 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000097
ANOWPM 00A3C1E3 20180325_120000 33.50 -86.92 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000120
ANOWPM 00A3C1E6 20180325_120000 33.39 -86.82 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000106
ANOWPM 00A3CD9B 20180325_120000 33.80 -86.94 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000111
ANOWPM 00A3D184 20180325_120000 33.57 -86.80 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000121
ANOWPM 00A62B1E 20180325_120000 34.69 -86.59 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000122
ANOWPM 00AABEF3 20180325_120000 32.36 -88.28 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000022
ANOWPM 0141F5E4 20180325_120000 58.39 -134.57 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000080
ANOWPM 0262D31D 20180325_120000 31.35 -109.54 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 02644E00 20180325_120000 34.24 -113.56 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000100
ANOWPM 026455E3 20180325_120000 33.48 -112.14 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000092
ANOWPM 026459BB 20180325_120000 33.41 -111.86 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000012
ANOWPM 026459BC 20180325_120000 33.56 -112.07 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000140
ANOWPM 02645DA1 20180325_120000 33.57 -112.19 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000142
ANOWPM 02646573 20180325_120000 33.40 -112.07 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000056
ANOWPM 02646575 20180325_120000 33.41 -111.93 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000035
ANOWPM 02646583 20180325_120000 33.40 -111.97 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000024
ANOWPM 02647C24 20180325_120000 33.43 -112.12 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000054
ANOWPM 02647CDD 20180325_120000 33.50 -112.09 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000080
ANOWPM 02654434 20180325_120000 32.30 -110.98 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000040
ANOWPM 02654436 20180325_120000 31.88 -111.00 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 02654438 20180325_120000 32.17 -110.98 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000050
ANOWPM 0265443A 20180325_120000 32.38 -111.13 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000050
ANOWPM 02654489 20180325_120000 32.25 -110.97 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000130
ANOWPM 0265DC74 20180325_120000 31.34 -110.94 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000070
ANOWPM 026697FB 20180325_120000 32.69 -114.61 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000060
ANOWPM 030047B5 20180325_120000 35.20 -90.19 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000000
ANOWPM 030D18F7 20180325_120000 34.76 -92.28 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000037
ANOWPM 030D1CE0 20180325_120000 34.68 -92.33 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000039
ANOWPM 03102636 20180325_120000 33.22 -92.67 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000000
ANOWPM 0310C275 20180325_120000 36.18 -94.12 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000051
ANOWPM 0393AE17 20180325_120000 37.69 -121.78 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 0393AE19 20180325_120000 37.74 -122.17 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000070
ANOWPM 0393AE1B 20180325_120000 37.81 -122.28 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000120
ANOWPM 0393AE1C 20180325_120000 37.79 -122.26 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000050
ANOWPM 0393AE1D 20180325_120000 37.86 -122.30 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000020
ANOWPM 03949878 20180325_120000 39.76 -121.84 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000070
ANOWPM 0394A042 20180325_120000 39.75 -121.62 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000000
ANOWPM 0394A811 20180325_120000 39.33 -121.67 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000080
ANOWPM 0394E691 20180325_120000 38.20 -120.68 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000130
ANOWPM 039534B7 20180325_120000 39.02 -122.29 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000066
ANOWPM 0395389A 20180325_120000 39.20 -122.02 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000060
ANOWPM 039582D2 20180325_120000 37.94 -122.03 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000080
ANOWPM 039586BC 20180325_120000 37.96 -122.36 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000040
ANOWPM 03966D3B 20180325_120000 36.79 -119.77 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000035
ANOWPM 03967508 20180325_120000 36.20 -120.10 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 03967509 20180325_120000 36.63 -120.38 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000070
ANOWPM 0396BB53 20180325_120000 39.53 -122.19 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 0397A5B2 20180325_120000 37.36 -118.33 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000013
ANOWPM 0397A99B 20180325_120000 36.49 -117.87 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000005
ANOWPM 0397A9AA 20180325_120000 36.60 -118.04 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000057
ANOWPM 0397A9AF 20180325_120000 37.37 -118.42 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000000
ANOWPM 0397F3DB 20180325_120000 35.05 -118.15 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000000
ANOWPM 0397F3DE 20180325_120000 35.36 -119.06 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000020
ANOWPM 0397FBA9 20180325_120000 34.84 -118.86 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 03992C60 20180325_120000 34.14 -117.85 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000054
ANOWPM 0399309F 20180325_120000 34.07 -118.23 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000080
ANOWPM 03993101 20180325_120000 34.20 -118.53 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000102
ANOWPM 03993BF4 20180325_120000 33.79 -118.18 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000061
ANOWPM 03993BF8 20180325_120000 33.86 -118.20 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000074
ANOWPM 039943CC 20180325_120000 34.38 -118.53 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000048
ANOWPM 03994F99 20180325_120000 34.67 -118.13 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000010
ANOWPM 0399824A 20180325_120000 36.95 -120.03 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000068
ANOWPM 0399C891 20180325_120000 37.97 -122.52 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000010
ANOWPM 039A1A99 20180325_120000 37.75 -119.59 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000110
ANOWPM 039A6CA2 20180325_120000 39.41 -123.35 NA COPOPM 3600 0 2
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 039AB2F3 20180325_120000 37.28 -120.43 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 039B9D52 20180325_120000 36.48 -121.73 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000020
ANOWPM 039B9D58 20180325_120000 36.21 -121.13 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000000
ANOWPM 039BA13B 20180325_120000 36.69 -121.62 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000080
ANOWPM 039BEB73 20180325_120000 38.31 -122.29 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000090
ANOWPM 039C3995 20180325_120000 39.23 -121.06 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000040
ANOWPM 039C3D79 20180325_120000 39.34 -120.17 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000120
ANOWPM 039C87B7 20180325_120000 33.83 -117.94 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000020
ANOWPM 039CD5D2 20180325_120000 38.94 -121.10 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 039CD5D4 20180325_120000 39.10 -120.95 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000070
ANOWPM 039CD5D6 20180325_120000 38.75 -121.27 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 039CD9BC 20180325_120000 39.17 -120.15 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000000
ANOWPM 039D27DF 20180325_120000 40.30 -121.23 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000110
ANOWPM 039D27E2 20180325_120000 39.81 -120.47 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000060
ANOWPM 039D4A9D 20180325_120000 39.94 -120.95 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000040
ANOWPM 039D721C 20180325_120000 33.92 -116.86 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000056
ANOWPM 039D7220 20180325_120000 33.58 -117.07 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000066
ANOWPM 039D9151 20180325_120000 34.00 -117.42 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000050
ANOWPM 039D9155 20180325_120000 34.00 -117.49 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000078
ANOWPM 039D9539 20180325_120000 33.68 -117.33 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000073
ANOWPM 039DC036 20180325_120000 38.61 -121.37 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000040
ANOWPM 039DC03A 20180325_120000 38.57 -121.49 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 039DC03B 20180325_120000 38.30 -121.42 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000000
ANOWPM 039DC03C 20180325_120000 38.68 -121.16 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 039DD3BB 20180325_120000 38.49 -121.21 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000060
ANOWPM 039E0E52 20180325_120000 36.84 -121.36 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000020
ANOWPM 039E5C75 20180325_120000 34.24 -117.27 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000064
ANOWPM 039E5C8B 20180325_120000 34.03 -117.62 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000108
ANOWPM 039E605C 20180325_120000 34.10 -117.63 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000176
ANOWPM 039EAE7E 20180325_120000 32.84 -116.77 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000050
ANOWPM 039EAE86 20180325_120000 32.58 -116.93 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000153
ANOWPM 039EAE8E 20180325_120000 32.79 -116.94 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000042
ANOWPM 039EF8B5 20180325_120000 37.77 -122.40 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000060
ANOWPM 039F4ABA 20180325_120000 37.95 -121.27 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000090
ANOWPM 039F9CC4 20180325_120000 35.02 -120.56 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000000
ANOWPM 039F9CC7 20180325_120000 35.05 -120.59 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000040
ANOWPM 039FB432 20180325_120000 35.49 -120.67 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000050
ANOWPM 039FE6F9 20180325_120000 37.48 -122.20 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000000
ANOWPM 03A0313B 20180325_120000 34.43 -119.69 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000010
ANOWPM 03A03520 20180325_120000 34.95 -120.43 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000000
ANOWPM 03A03904 20180325_120000 34.64 -120.46 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000000
ANOWPM 03A0390B 20180325_120000 34.45 -119.83 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 03A07F52 20180325_120000 37.00 -121.57 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000000
ANOWPM 03A07F55 20180325_120000 37.35 -121.89 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000070
ANOWPM 03A07F56 20180325_120000 37.34 -121.85 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000050
ANOWPM 03A0CD77 20180325_120000 36.99 -121.99 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000000
ANOWPM 03A0D15D 20180325_120000 37.06 -122.08 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000020
ANOWPM 03A0F477 20180325_120000 37.05 -122.07 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000090
ANOWPM 03A0F479 20180325_120000 37.13 -122.12 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000000
ANOWPM 03A1BFA1 20180325_120000 41.73 -122.63 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000130
ANOWPM 03A205F4 20180325_120000 38.10 -122.24 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000050
ANOWPM 03A211AA 20180325_120000 38.35 -121.96 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000000
ANOWPM 03A22CFF 20180325_120000 38.22 -121.77 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000080
ANOWPM 03A25414 20180325_120000 38.40 -122.82 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 03A2A235 20180325_120000 37.66 -120.99 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 03A2A236 20180325_120000 37.49 -120.84 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000120
ANOWPM 03A2F053 20180325_120000 39.14 -121.62 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000080
ANOWPM 03A3DAB9 20180325_120000 36.49 -118.83 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000072
ANOWPM 03A3E282 20180325_120000 36.33 -119.29 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000000
ANOWPM 03A3E28A 20180325_120000 36.03 -119.05 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000040
ANOWPM 03A476F7 20180325_120000 34.21 -118.87 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000020
ANOWPM 03A476F9 20180325_120000 34.40 -118.81 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000000
ANOWPM 03A47ADC 20180325_120000 34.45 -119.23 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000080
ANOWPM 03A47EC2 20180325_120000 34.28 -118.68 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000020
ANOWPM 03A482A9 20180325_120000 34.27 -119.13 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 03A4C514 20180325_120000 38.53 -121.77 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000020
ANOWPM 04C4DB18 20180325_120000 39.83 -104.94 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000058
ANOWPM 04C6AFD3 20180325_120000 40.16 -105.10 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000046
ANOWPM 04C6B3B9 20180325_120000 40.01 -105.27 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000020
ANOWPM 04C920D4 20180325_120000 38.74 -108.07 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000070
ANOWPM 04C96EF2 20180325_120000 39.75 -104.99 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000055
ANOWPM 04C96EFD 20180325_120000 39.74 -104.94 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000052
ANOWPM 04C96F0A 20180325_120000 39.78 -105.01 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000046
ANOWPM 04C96F0B 20180325_120000 39.73 -105.02 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000048
ANOWPM 04C96F0C 20180325_120000 39.79 -104.99 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000049
ANOWPM 04CA0B34 20180325_120000 39.53 -105.07 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000038
ANOWPM 04CAF5A1 20180325_120000 38.85 -104.83 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000028
ANOWPM 04CB91D7 20180325_120000 39.53 -107.78 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000060
ANOWPM 04CF3B59 20180325_120000 40.57 -105.08 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000045
ANOWPM 04D778B6 20180325_120000 40.41 -104.71 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000066
ANOWPM 055D719A 20180325_120000 41.17 -73.20 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000050
ANOWPM 055D75F3 20180325_120000 41.40 -73.44 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000040
ANOWPM 055DBFC9 20180325_120000 41.77 -72.68 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000060
ANOWPM 055DC39B 20180325_120000 41.78 -72.63 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000090
ANOWPM 055E0DD5 20180325_120000 41.83 -73.30 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000020
ANOWPM 055EAA2B 20180325_120000 41.30 -72.90 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000040
ANOWPM 055EB25B 20180325_120000 41.55 -73.04 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000060
ANOWPM 055EF8AC 20180325_120000 41.35 -72.08 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000020
ANOWPM 05F60812 20180325_120000 38.98 -75.56 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000050
ANOWPM 05F65E04 20180325_120000 39.74 -75.56 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000041
ANOWPM 05F6A83A 20180325_120000 38.64 -75.61 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000096
ANOWPM 068E9EB9 20180325_120000 38.90 -76.96 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 068E9EBC 20180325_120000 38.92 -77.01 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000120
ANOWPM 0727D156 20180325_120000 30.13 -85.74 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000129
ANOWPM 07286D97 20180325_120000 28.05 -80.63 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000180
ANOWPM 0728BBD1 20180325_120000 26.07 -80.34 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000109
ANOWPM 0728BBD2 20180325_120000 26.05 -80.26 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000075
ANOWPM 0728BBD3 20180325_120000 26.13 -80.17 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000121
ANOWPM 0729A616 20180325_120000 28.96 -82.64 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000173
ANOWPM 072A4254 20180325_120000 26.30 -81.72 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000093
ANOWPM 072A9072 20180325_120000 30.18 -82.62 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000187
ANOWPM 072BC93D 20180325_120000 30.48 -81.59 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000148
ANOWPM 072BC952 20180325_120000 30.14 -81.63 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000101
ANOWPM 072BC954 20180325_120000 30.26 -81.45 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000163
ANOWPM 072BC95C 20180325_120000 30.26 -81.61 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000142
ANOWPM 072E39FF 20180325_120000 30.43 -82.79 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000212
ANOWPM 072FC100 20180325_120000 27.78 -82.42 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000161
ANOWPM 072FC4B9 20180325_120000 27.89 -82.54 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000132
ANOWPM 072FCC4A 20180325_120000 27.97 -82.23 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000102
ANOWPM 07300EB4 20180325_120000 30.85 -85.60 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000104
ANOWPM 0732319C 20180325_120000 30.44 -84.35 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000141
ANOWPM 0733B833 20180325_120000 29.17 -82.10 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000163
ANOWPM 07340657 20180325_120000 27.17 -80.24 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000197
ANOWPM 07343158 20180325_120000 25.79 -80.22 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000107
ANOWPM 073444D1 20180325_120000 25.47 -80.48 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000135
ANOWPM 0734A29A 20180325_120000 30.63 -81.54 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000183
ANOWPM 073594C2 20180325_120000 28.60 -81.36 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000167
ANOWPM 07362938 20180325_120000 26.72 -80.66 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000172
ANOWPM 0736D8FA 20180325_120000 28.09 -82.70 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000164
ANOWPM 07384C1F 20180325_120000 30.39 -87.01 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000109
ANOWPM 07389A3D 20180325_120000 27.29 -82.51 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000092
ANOWPM 0738A202 20180325_120000 27.09 -82.36 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000161
ANOWPM 073ABD11 20180325_120000 30.08 -84.16 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000136
ANOWPM 07CD3912 20180325_120000 33.69 -84.27 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000127
ANOWPM 07D21B47 20180325_120000 33.72 -84.36 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000132
ANOWPM 07D6AEF2 20180325_120000 33.43 -84.16 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000087
ANOWPM 07D6FD11 20180325_120000 32.61 -83.60 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000210
ANOWPM 07E072F8 20180325_120000 32.52 -84.94 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000084
ANOWPM 07E5072B 20180325_120000 33.43 -82.02 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000097
ANOWPM 07ECA7F2 20180325_120000 34.98 -85.30 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000013
ANOWPM 09898F1A 20180325_120000 43.60 -116.35 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000020
ANOWPM 098A2B5F 20180325_120000 42.88 -112.46 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000060
ANOWPM 098A2B64 20180325_120000 42.59 -112.46 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000000
ANOWPM 098AC79A 20180325_120000 47.32 -116.57 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000090
ANOWPM 098B63D4 20180325_120000 43.68 -114.37 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000010
ANOWPM 098BB1F1 20180325_120000 43.82 -115.84 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000090
ANOWPM 098BB1F2 20180325_120000 44.10 -115.97 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000109
ANOWPM 098C0013 20180325_120000 48.29 -116.56 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000060
ANOWPM 098C4E3B 20180325_120000 43.47 -112.05 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000040
ANOWPM 098C9C52 20180325_120000 48.71 -116.37 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000014
ANOWPM 098D86B2 20180325_120000 43.58 -116.56 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000050
ANOWPM 0990E212 20180325_120000 45.93 -116.11 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000010
ANOWPM 0990E213 20180325_120000 46.21 -116.03 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000074
ANOWPM 09917E53 20180325_120000 42.68 -114.25 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000050
ANOWPM 09921A95 20180325_120000 46.73 -116.95 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000020
ANOWPM 099268B4 20180325_120000 45.18 -113.89 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000100
ANOWPM 0993EF5C 20180325_120000 46.41 -116.99 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 0993EF5D 20180325_120000 46.40 -116.81 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000018
ANOWPM 0993EF5E 20180325_120000 46.33 -116.54 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000006
ANOWPM 09957601 20180325_120000 47.54 -116.24 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000240
ANOWPM 09961237 20180325_120000 42.57 -114.49 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000060
ANOWPM 09966052 20180325_120000 44.89 -116.11 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000010
ANOWPM 0A24E899 20180325_120000 40.05 -88.37 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000021
ANOWPM 0A26C917 20180325_120000 42.06 -87.86 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000004
ANOWPM 0A26C9D9 20180325_120000 42.14 -87.80 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000017
ANOWPM 0A26D0E5 20180325_120000 41.86 -87.75 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000021
ANOWPM 0A289DD2 20180325_120000 41.77 -88.15 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000041
ANOWPM 0A2BE992 20180325_120000 38.09 -88.62 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000102
ANOWPM 0A2EA925 20180325_120000 39.10 -90.34 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000050
ANOWPM 0A32EE71 20180325_120000 42.22 -88.24 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 0A334463 20180325_120000 40.52 -89.00 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000039
ANOWPM 0A338ABD 20180325_120000 39.87 -88.93 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000034
ANOWPM 0A342ADF 20180325_120000 38.70 -90.14 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000124
ANOWPM 0A37D095 20180325_120000 40.70 -89.59 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000037
ANOWPM 0A39F351 20180325_120000 38.18 -89.79 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000117
ANOWPM 0A3A9B4A 20180325_120000 41.51 -90.52 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000028
ANOWPM 0A3ADDBA 20180325_120000 38.61 -90.16 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000117
ANOWPM 0A3B79FC 20180325_120000 39.83 -89.64 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000041
ANOWPM 0A4011BA 20180325_120000 41.53 -88.12 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000021
ANOWPM 0A4011C3 20180325_120000 41.22 -88.19 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000011
ANOWPM 0ABB0A34 20180325_120000 41.09 -85.10 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000042
ANOWPM 0ABB5858 20180325_120000 39.24 -85.89 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000026
ANOWPM 0AC08878 20180325_120000 41.66 -85.97 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000006
ANOWPM 0AC34797 20180325_120000 39.96 -85.94 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000060
ANOWPM 0AC4CE34 20180325_120000 40.48 -86.11 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000071
ANOWPM 0AC829A6 20180325_120000 41.61 -87.30 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000095
ANOWPM 0AC829B4 20180325_120000 41.59 -87.49 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000060
ANOWPM 0AC913FB 20180325_120000 40.13 -85.65 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000044
ANOWPM 0AC9625E 20180325_120000 39.81 -86.11 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000008
ANOWPM 0AC96261 20180325_120000 39.79 -86.21 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000033
ANOWPM 0AC96267 20180325_120000 39.79 -86.13 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000073
ANOWPM 0ACA9A93 20180325_120000 39.16 -86.50 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000054
ANOWPM 0ACDF608 20180325_120000 41.62 -87.20 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000188
ANOWPM 0AD018DF 20180325_120000 41.70 -86.21 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000043
ANOWPM 0AD289D8 20180325_120000 40.43 -86.85 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000065
ANOWPM 0AD37445 20180325_120000 38.01 -87.58 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000134
ANOWPM 0AD41082 20180325_120000 39.49 -87.40 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000062
ANOWPM 0AD68173 20180325_120000 41.17 -85.63 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000039
ANOWPM 0B6469B8 20180325_120000 41.98 -91.69 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000050
ANOWPM 0B681312 20180325_120000 40.97 -95.04 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000100
ANOWPM 0B6A842E 20180325_120000 41.60 -93.64 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000060
ANOWPM 0B6E2D96 20180325_120000 40.69 -92.01 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000060
ANOWPM 0BF9A4BA 20180325_120000 38.84 -94.75 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000018
ANOWPM 0C06C41D 20180325_120000 39.02 -95.71 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000065
ANOWPM 0C098331 20180325_120000 38.77 -99.76 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000052
ANOWPM 0C0BA625 20180325_120000 39.12 -94.64 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000018
ANOWPM 0C873EC1 20180325_120000 38.46 -82.63 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000044
ANOWPM 0C8D5935 20180325_120000 37.78 -87.08 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000070
ANOWPM 0C8DA945 20180325_120000 37.13 -86.15 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000076
ANOWPM 0C8E91BC 20180325_120000 38.07 -84.50 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000078
ANOWPM 0C928956 20180325_120000 37.71 -85.85 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000094
ANOWPM 0C9548A3 20180325_120000 38.06 -85.90 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000063
ANOWPM 0C9548B3 20180325_120000 38.23 -85.65 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000067
ANOWPM 0C9548C0 20180325_120000 38.18 -85.57 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000072
ANOWPM 0C954C81 20180325_120000 38.23 -85.83 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000106
ANOWPM 0C9A7C90 20180325_120000 37.06 -88.57 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000070
ANOWPM 0CA1CB93 20180325_120000 37.28 -83.22 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000100
ANOWPM 0CA6FBB9 20180325_120000 37.05 -86.21 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000073
ANOWPM 0D1F38F8 20180325_120000 32.54 -93.75 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000076
ANOWPM 0D1FD538 20180325_120000 30.26 -93.29 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000126
ANOWPM 0D21F819 20180325_120000 30.46 -91.18 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000082
ANOWPM 0D24BB19 20180325_120000 30.04 -90.27 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000066
ANOWPM 0D255377 20180325_120000 30.23 -92.04 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000035
ANOWPM 0D25A194 20180325_120000 29.76 -90.77 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000026
ANOWPM 0D268BF2 20180325_120000 30.32 -90.81 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000044
ANOWPM 0D27C47C 20180325_120000 29.99 -90.10 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000064
ANOWPM 0D2A3577 20180325_120000 29.94 -89.98 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000075
ANOWPM 0D2CA672 20180325_120000 30.43 -90.20 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000055
ANOWPM 0DB5AC9B 20180325_120000 44.09 -70.21 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000000
ANOWPM 0DB5FABE 20180325_120000 47.36 -68.32 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000060
ANOWPM 0DB5FEFC 20180325_120000 46.70 -68.03 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000054
ANOWPM 0DB648ED 20180325_120000 43.66 -70.27 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000070
ANOWPM 0DB6E577 20180325_120000 44.38 -68.26 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000060
ANOWPM 0DB8256B 20180325_120000 44.55 -70.55 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000020
ANOWPM 0DB86BB2 20180325_120000 44.80 -68.77 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000020
ANOWPM 0DB86BC1 20180325_120000 44.82 -68.77 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000020
ANOWPM 0DB9F270 20180325_120000 44.96 -67.06 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000076
ANOWPM 0E4EE33F 20180325_120000 39.46 -76.63 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000040
ANOWPM 0E5065F3 20180325_120000 39.70 -75.86 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000060
ANOWPM 0E510234 20180325_120000 38.59 -76.14 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000060
ANOWPM 0E519E72 20180325_120000 39.71 -79.01 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000040
ANOWPM 0E51F079 20180325_120000 39.41 -76.30 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000020
ANOWPM 0E523AB6 20180325_120000 39.14 -76.85 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000040
ANOWPM 0E5288D2 20180325_120000 39.31 -75.80 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000050
ANOWPM 0E52E2A9 20180325_120000 39.11 -77.11 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000060
ANOWPM 0E53252E 20180325_120000 39.06 -76.88 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000040
ANOWPM 0E54ABB9 20180325_120000 39.57 -77.72 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 0E9BEE08 20180325_120000 39.30 -76.60 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000040
ANOWPM 0EE727B6 20180325_120000 42.45 -73.25 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000060
ANOWPM 0EE73F21 20180325_120000 42.70 -73.11 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000080
ANOWPM 0EE779BC 20180325_120000 41.68 -71.17 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 0EE8259D 20180325_120000 42.77 -71.10 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 0EE86805 20180325_120000 42.61 -72.60 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000040
ANOWPM 0EE8AE60 20180325_120000 42.11 -72.59 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000020
ANOWPM 0EE90C12 20180325_120000 42.30 -72.33 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000000
ANOWPM 0EEA34F5 20180325_120000 42.07 -71.01 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000000
ANOWPM 0EEA833A 20180325_120000 42.33 -71.08 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000060
ANOWPM 0EEA833B 20180325_120000 42.36 -71.05 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 0EEA833C 20180325_120000 42.33 -71.06 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000070
ANOWPM 0EEAD147 20180325_120000 42.26 -71.79 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000080
ANOWPM 0F81E11E 20180325_120000 43.57 -83.89 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000049
ANOWPM 0F86C325 20180325_120000 43.03 -83.67 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000052
ANOWPM 0F89341C 20180325_120000 42.74 -84.54 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000043
ANOWPM 0F8B08D8 20180325_120000 42.28 -85.54 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000044
ANOWPM 0F8BA524 20180325_120000 42.98 -85.67 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000028
ANOWPM 0F8D2BB7 20180325_120000 42.00 -83.95 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000055
ANOWPM 0F908711 20180325_120000 44.31 -84.89 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000056
ANOWPM 0F95B735 20180325_120000 42.95 -82.46 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000056
ANOWPM 0F96A191 20180325_120000 46.29 -85.95 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000045
ANOWPM 0F97DA18 20180325_120000 42.24 -83.60 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000049
ANOWPM 0F982831 20180325_120000 42.23 -83.21 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000057
ANOWPM 0F982851 20180325_120000 42.31 -83.15 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000061
ANOWPM 0F982857 20180325_120000 42.32 -83.07 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000068
ANOWPM 0F982891 20180325_120000 42.26 -83.16 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000094
ANOWPM 1018589A 20180325_120000 45.14 -93.21 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000080
ANOWPM 1018AAAD 20180325_120000 46.85 -95.85 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000050
ANOWPM 1018F9F0 20180325_120000 47.88 -95.03 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000020
ANOWPM 101A9489 20180325_120000 46.71 -92.51 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000000
ANOWPM 101B2122 20180325_120000 47.38 -94.60 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000000
ANOWPM 101CB8F2 20180325_120000 47.97 -89.69 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000020
ANOWPM 101D4334 20180325_120000 46.39 -94.14 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000010
ANOWPM 101D86A6 20180325_120000 44.74 -93.24 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000050
ANOWPM 101D86B0 20180325_120000 44.71 -93.29 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000010
ANOWPM 101FF992 20180325_120000 44.97 -93.26 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 101FF993 20180325_120000 44.95 -93.26 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 101FFD45 20180325_120000 45.01 -93.27 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000020
ANOWPM 10235135 20180325_120000 47.95 -91.50 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000050
ANOWPM 10249A22 20180325_120000 44.46 -95.84 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000060
ANOWPM 102894E0 20180325_120000 43.99 -92.45 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000040
ANOWPM 102AA797 20180325_120000 44.96 -93.04 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000040
ANOWPM 102CE269 20180325_120000 47.52 -92.54 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000010
ANOWPM 102CE492 20180325_120000 46.74 -92.17 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000010
ANOWPM 102E0B7C 20180325_120000 45.55 -94.13 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000040
ANOWPM 103203B1 20180325_120000 45.21 -93.67 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 10B223B2 20180325_120000 33.75 -90.73 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000068
ANOWPM 10B57F12 20180325_120000 34.83 -89.99 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000061
ANOWPM 10B5CD34 20180325_120000 31.32 -89.29 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000143
ANOWPM 10B753D3 20180325_120000 30.30 -89.40 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000075
ANOWPM 10B7A1F8 20180325_120000 30.39 -89.05 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000080
ANOWPM 10B7F024 20180325_120000 32.33 -90.18 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000094
ANOWPM 10B7F025 20180325_120000 32.35 -90.23 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000081
ANOWPM 10B976B6 20180325_120000 30.38 -88.53 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000093
ANOWPM 114C40D5 20180325_120000 39.74 -94.86 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000026
ANOWPM 114EB1D3 20180325_120000 38.76 -94.58 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000018
ANOWPM 114EFFF1 20180325_120000 37.70 -94.03 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000031
ANOWPM 11503875 20180325_120000 39.30 -94.38 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000005
ANOWPM 1154CC74 20180325_120000 37.26 -93.30 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000012
ANOWPM 11578B92 20180325_120000 39.10 -94.57 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000035
ANOWPM 11578B9A 20180325_120000 39.05 -94.45 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000086
ANOWPM 115827C3 20180325_120000 38.45 -90.40 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000104
ANOWPM 1165EF09 20180325_120000 38.65 -90.35 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000125
ANOWPM 1196DE67 20180325_120000 38.54 -90.26 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000123
ANOWPM 1196DEB5 20180325_120000 38.66 -90.20 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000057
ANOWPM 1196DEBD 20180325_120000 38.66 -90.19 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000039
ANOWPM 1196DEBE 20180325_120000 38.63 -90.28 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000084
ANOWPM 11E39ED1 20180325_120000 47.49 -111.30 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000000
ANOWPM 11E5C1B6 20180325_120000 47.05 -109.46 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000056
ANOWPM 11E61001 20180325_120000 48.36 -114.19 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000000
ANOWPM 11E65E03 20180325_120000 45.68 -111.06 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 11E91D14 20180325_120000 46.85 -111.99 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000000
ANOWPM 11E91D2A 20180325_120000 46.66 -112.01 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000063
ANOWPM 11E9B962 20180325_120000 48.38 -115.55 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000129
ANOWPM 11EB4008 20180325_120000 46.84 -114.02 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000045
ANOWPM 11EB4015 20180325_120000 47.01 -114.22 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000040
ANOWPM 11EB4016 20180325_120000 47.18 -113.48 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000130
ANOWPM 11EC787A 20180325_120000 48.32 -107.86 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000000
ANOWPM 11ED14B1 20180325_120000 45.44 -105.37 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000042
ANOWPM 11EDFF17 20180325_120000 46.24 -114.16 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000048
ANOWPM 11EE4D32 20180325_120000 47.87 -104.68 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000033
ANOWPM 11EEE971 20180325_120000 45.37 -106.49 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000035
ANOWPM 11EF3797 20180325_120000 47.59 -115.32 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000039
ANOWPM 11EFD3D5 20180325_120000 46.00 -112.50 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000020
ANOWPM 11F29347 20180325_120000 45.81 -108.43 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000013
ANOWPM 12829E03 20180325_120000 41.25 -95.97 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000160
ANOWPM 12919217 20180325_120000 41.13 -95.96 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000150
ANOWPM 1313455B 20180325_120000 36.11 -115.25 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000037
ANOWPM 1313457B 20180325_120000 36.27 -115.24 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000036
ANOWPM 1313465A 20180325_120000 36.05 -115.05 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000033
ANOWPM 1313474C 20180325_120000 36.14 -115.08 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000035
ANOWPM 13134761 20180325_120000 36.16 -115.11 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000035
ANOWPM 1313492B 20180325_120000 35.79 -115.36 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000036
ANOWPM 13134B0D 20180325_120000 36.14 -115.18 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000041
ANOWPM 13136470 20180325_120000 36.36 -115.36 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000055
ANOWPM 13139357 20180325_120000 38.90 -119.73 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 13178B00 20180325_120000 39.53 -119.81 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000010
ANOWPM 13178EDD 20180325_120000 39.54 -119.75 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 13178EDF 20180325_120000 39.62 -119.72 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000050
ANOWPM 1360A1F4 20180325_120000 39.14 -119.77 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000020
ANOWPM 13AC29D7 20180325_120000 42.93 -72.27 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 13ACC61A 20180325_120000 43.63 -72.31 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000081
ANOWPM 13AD27B9 20180325_120000 42.86 -71.88 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000000
ANOWPM 13ADB082 20180325_120000 42.86 -71.38 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000020
ANOWPM 14442416 20180325_120000 39.46 -74.45 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000054
ANOWPM 1444723A 20180325_120000 40.85 -73.97 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000039
ANOWPM 14450E72 20180325_120000 39.93 -75.13 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000077
ANOWPM 1445AAB7 20180325_120000 39.42 -75.03 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000056
ANOWPM 1445F8D3 20180325_120000 40.72 -74.19 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000038
ANOWPM 144698FB 20180325_120000 40.73 -74.05 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000062
ANOWPM 1446E331 20180325_120000 40.52 -74.81 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000047
ANOWPM 14473155 20180325_120000 40.28 -74.74 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000046
ANOWPM 14477F7B 20180325_120000 40.46 -74.43 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000061
ANOWPM 1449F074 20180325_120000 40.64 -74.21 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000081
ANOWPM 1449F843 20180325_120000 40.60 -74.28 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000062
ANOWPM 144A3E97 20180325_120000 40.92 -75.07 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000036
ANOWPM 14DCBAA7 20180325_120000 35.14 -106.58 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000052
ANOWPM 14DCBAAD 20180325_120000 35.02 -106.65 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000074
ANOWPM 14DCBE84 20180325_120000 35.19 -106.51 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000014
ANOWPM 14DE8F60 20180325_120000 32.00 -106.60 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 14DE8F69 20180325_120000 32.31 -106.75 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000040
ANOWPM 14E06418 20180325_120000 32.73 -103.12 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000020
ANOWPM 14E40DA5 20180325_120000 35.62 -106.08 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000040
ANOWPM 14E4F7F5 20180325_120000 36.38 -105.58 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000070
ANOWPM 15755115 20180325_120000 42.64 -73.75 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000048
ANOWPM 157996D5 20180325_120000 42.88 -78.81 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000047
ANOWPM 15799AC6 20180325_120000 43.00 -78.90 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000050
ANOWPM 1579E4F3 20180325_120000 44.36 -73.90 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000060
ANOWPM 157A4E6B 20180325_120000 44.98 -74.70 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000086
ANOWPM 157C5624 20180325_120000 40.64 -74.02 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000065
ANOWPM 157C5666 20180325_120000 40.69 -73.93 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000068
ANOWPM 157D925F 20180325_120000 43.15 -77.55 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000010
ANOWPM 157E2AB5 20180325_120000 40.74 -73.59 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000077
ANOWPM 157E7943 20180325_120000 40.85 -73.93 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000085
ANOWPM 157E7956 20180325_120000 40.71 -73.99 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000062
ANOWPM 157E7957 20180325_120000 40.82 -73.95 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000059
ANOWPM 157F1CE1 20180325_120000 43.10 -75.22 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000053
ANOWPM 157FFF72 20180325_120000 41.50 -74.01 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000099
ANOWPM 15818688 20180325_120000 40.73 -73.89 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000056
ANOWPM 1581868C 20180325_120000 40.74 -73.82 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000024
ANOWPM 1581868D 20180325_120000 40.74 -73.82 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000085
ANOWPM 158222BF 20180325_120000 40.58 -74.20 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000066
ANOWPM 15827075 20180325_120000 41.18 -74.03 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000078
ANOWPM 1584E179 20180325_120000 40.83 -73.06 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000071
ANOWPM 15875A44 20180325_120000 41.05 -73.76 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000062
ANOWPM 1610F4F2 20180325_120000 35.61 -82.58 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000025
ANOWPM 161317B4 20180325_120000 35.73 -81.37 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000010
ANOWPM 161588B9 20180325_120000 35.04 -78.95 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000010
ANOWPM 16167312 20180325_120000 35.81 -80.26 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000026
ANOWPM 16175D7F 20180325_120000 35.99 -78.90 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000060
ANOWPM 16175DD3 20180325_120000 35.89 -78.87 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000035
ANOWPM 1617ABF3 20180325_120000 35.99 -77.59 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000060
ANOWPM 1617F9C6 20180325_120000 36.11 -80.23 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000048
ANOWPM 1617F9CE 20180325_120000 36.03 -80.34 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000059
ANOWPM 161A1C9D 20180325_120000 36.11 -79.80 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000020
ANOWPM 161D29D2 20180325_120000 35.50 -78.44 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000020
ANOWPM 161DC612 20180325_120000 35.43 -79.29 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000100
ANOWPM 161FE919 20180325_120000 35.24 -80.78 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000100
ANOWPM 161FE91A 20180325_120000 35.15 -80.87 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000090
ANOWPM 161FE91D 20180325_120000 35.21 -80.87 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000080
ANOWPM 16203714 20180325_120000 35.91 -82.06 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000037
ANOWPM 16208531 20180325_120000 35.26 -79.86 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000050
ANOWPM 16216F92 20180325_120000 34.36 -77.86 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000010
ANOWPM 16242EB6 20180325_120000 35.64 -77.36 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000040
ANOWPM 16282652 20180325_120000 35.44 -83.44 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000150
ANOWPM 1629ACFE 20180325_120000 35.86 -78.57 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000109
ANOWPM 1629AD05 20180325_120000 35.87 -78.82 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000000
ANOWPM 16A852D4 20180325_120000 48.64 -102.40 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000003
ANOWPM 16A8A0F3 20180325_120000 46.83 -100.77 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000070
ANOWPM 16A8F2FC 20180325_120000 46.93 -96.85 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000029
ANOWPM 16AA2793 20180325_120000 47.32 -102.53 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000038
ANOWPM 16AE6D52 20180325_120000 47.60 -103.26 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000000
ANOWPM 16AF0994 20180325_120000 47.30 -101.77 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000039
ANOWPM 16B04212 20180325_120000 47.19 -101.43 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000042
ANOWPM 16B5C053 20180325_120000 47.94 -101.57 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000050
ANOWPM 16B65C93 20180325_120000 48.15 -103.64 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000056
ANOWPM 173F1491 20180325_120000 38.79 -83.53 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000020
ANOWPM 173F62B9 20180325_120000 40.77 -84.05 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000034
ANOWPM 174185A3 20180325_120000 39.48 -84.41 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000053
ANOWPM 174185A4 20180325_120000 39.47 -84.39 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000154
ANOWPM 17426FF5 20180325_120000 39.93 -83.81 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000037
ANOWPM 1742BE26 20180325_120000 39.08 -84.14 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000078
ANOWPM 174444EC 20180325_120000 41.49 -81.68 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000012
ANOWPM 174667AD 20180325_120000 40.08 -82.82 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000004
ANOWPM 174667B2 20180325_120000 40.00 -82.99 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000033
ANOWPM 1747A015 20180325_120000 39.81 -83.89 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000057
ANOWPM 17483C56 20180325_120000 39.28 -84.37 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000075
ANOWPM 17483C5A 20180325_120000 39.21 -84.69 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000054
ANOWPM 17483C80 20180325_120000 39.15 -84.54 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000087
ANOWPM 174B49A1 20180325_120000 40.37 -80.62 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000156
ANOWPM 174BE5D7 20180325_120000 41.73 -81.24 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000056
ANOWPM 174C33FC 20180325_120000 38.51 -82.66 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000066
ANOWPM 174D2A0A 20180325_120000 41.46 -82.11 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000018
ANOWPM 174D6C88 20180325_120000 41.64 -83.55 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000045
ANOWPM 174E08BE 20180325_120000 41.10 -80.66 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000068
ANOWPM 174EA4F4 20180325_120000 41.06 -81.92 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000048
ANOWPM 17502BB6 20180325_120000 39.76 -84.20 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000044
ANOWPM 17538AD9 20180325_120000 39.84 -84.72 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000070
ANOWPM 1755F804 20180325_120000 40.80 -81.37 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000044
ANOWPM 17564621 20180325_120000 41.06 -81.47 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000027
ANOWPM 1756943E 20180325_120000 41.23 -80.80 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000010
ANOWPM 17581AD7 20180325_120000 39.43 -84.20 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000099
ANOWPM 17D7CE41 20180325_120000 35.75 -94.67 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000079
ANOWPM 17DA6B59 20180325_120000 34.26 -97.47 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000320
ANOWPM 17DBA2E1 20180325_120000 35.32 -97.49 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000117
ANOWPM 17DC417B 20180325_120000 34.63 -98.43 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000216
ANOWPM 17DE170C 20180325_120000 36.16 -98.94 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000207
ANOWPM 17E25BCC 20180325_120000 36.70 -97.08 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000100
ANOWPM 17E78A5F 20180325_120000 36.92 -95.63 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000064
ANOWPM 17E829DD 20180325_120000 35.61 -97.47 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000116
ANOWPM 17E93373 20180325_120000 36.80 -94.72 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000021
ANOWPM 17E9FC2F 20180325_120000 34.91 -95.79 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000123
ANOWPM 17ED569E 20180325_120000 35.95 -96.00 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000103
ANOWPM 17ED5A57 20180325_120000 36.21 -95.98 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000130
ANOWPM 18704194 20180325_120000 44.79 -117.84 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000038
ANOWPM 18708FBD 20180325_120000 44.59 -123.27 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000028
ANOWPM 18717A14 20180325_120000 45.77 -122.77 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000048
ANOWPM 187216B4 20180325_120000 44.30 -120.84 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000033
ANOWPM 1872B294 20180325_120000 44.29 -121.56 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000015
ANOWPM 1872B308 20180325_120000 44.06 -121.31 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000043
ANOWPM 187300B2 20180325_120000 43.23 -123.36 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000074
ANOWPM 18739CF2 20180325_120000 44.42 -118.95 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000081
ANOWPM 1873EB13 20180325_120000 43.59 -119.05 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000031
ANOWPM 18748763 20180325_120000 42.62 -122.81 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000039
ANOWPM 1874881B 20180325_120000 42.19 -122.71 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000046
ANOWPM 18748FA1 20180325_120000 42.33 -122.88 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000079
ANOWPM 1875239B 20180325_120000 42.29 -123.23 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000078
ANOWPM 187523B4 20180325_120000 42.16 -123.65 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000069
ANOWPM 18752402 20180325_120000 42.43 -123.35 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000111
ANOWPM 187571B4 20180325_120000 42.19 -121.73 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000071
ANOWPM 1875BFD1 20180325_120000 42.19 -120.35 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000017
ANOWPM 18760E2B 20180325_120000 44.07 -123.14 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000052
ANOWPM 18760E2C 20180325_120000 44.03 -123.08 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000053
ANOWPM 187611E1 20180325_120000 44.05 -123.02 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000028
ANOWPM 187615CD 20180325_120000 43.74 -122.48 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000033
ANOWPM 1876311C 20180325_120000 43.80 -123.05 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000010
ANOWPM 1876AA39 20180325_120000 44.62 -123.09 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000027
ANOWPM 1876B202 20180325_120000 44.40 -122.73 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000093
ANOWPM 18774699 20180325_120000 44.94 -123.01 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000068
ANOWPM 1877E300 20180325_120000 45.50 -122.60 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000051
ANOWPM 1877EA88 20180325_120000 45.51 -122.48 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000044
ANOWPM 18791BA9 20180325_120000 45.65 -118.82 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000068
ANOWPM 187969CB 20180325_120000 45.32 -118.08 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000027
ANOWPM 187A0597 20180325_120000 45.60 -121.20 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000033
ANOWPM 187A53B4 20180325_120000 45.53 -122.97 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000032
ANOWPM 187A541F 20180325_120000 45.47 -122.82 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000067
ANOWPM 1908D811 20180325_120000 39.92 -77.31 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000044
ANOWPM 19092638 20180325_120000 40.47 -79.96 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 19092670 20180325_120000 40.32 -79.87 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 19092B90 20180325_120000 40.44 -79.86 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000040
ANOWPM 19097451 20180325_120000 40.81 -79.57 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000055
ANOWPM 1909C27E 20180325_120000 40.75 -80.32 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000029
ANOWPM 190A5EBB 20180325_120000 40.38 -75.97 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000050
ANOWPM 190AAFF1 20180325_120000 40.52 -78.39 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000015
ANOWPM 190AFAFB 20180325_120000 41.71 -76.51 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000120
ANOWPM 190CD014 20180325_120000 40.81 -77.88 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000039
ANOWPM 190D1E34 20180325_120000 39.83 -75.77 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000004
ANOWPM 190EF2F5 20180325_120000 40.25 -77.19 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000038
ANOWPM 190F8ED2 20180325_120000 39.84 -75.37 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000066
ANOWPM 190F8F3D 20180325_120000 39.82 -75.41 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000065
ANOWPM 19102B13 20180325_120000 42.14 -80.04 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000021
ANOWPM 1911B1B2 20180325_120000 39.82 -80.29 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000041
ANOWPM 19134026 20180325_120000 41.44 -75.62 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000037
ANOWPM 19138677 20180325_120000 40.05 -76.28 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000012
ANOWPM 1913867C 20180325_120000 40.04 -76.11 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000012
ANOWPM 191470D4 20180325_120000 40.61 -75.43 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000072
ANOWPM 19164592 20180325_120000 41.08 -75.33 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000018
ANOWPM 19181A80 20180325_120000 39.99 -75.08 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000027
ANOWPM 19181A87 20180325_120000 39.92 -75.19 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000050
ANOWPM 191A9AF0 20180325_120000 41.64 -76.94 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000008
ANOWPM 191BD759 20180325_120000 40.44 -80.42 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000033
ANOWPM 1A3A5332 20180325_120000 41.62 -71.72 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 1A3AEF86 20180325_120000 41.81 -71.41 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000050
ANOWPM 1A3AEF8E 20180325_120000 41.83 -71.42 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000040
ANOWPM 1A3AF362 20180325_120000 41.84 -71.36 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000020
ANOWPM 1A3B3D97 20180325_120000 41.49 -71.42 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000020
ANOWPM 1AD55ADE 20180325_120000 32.94 -79.66 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000059
ANOWPM 1AD64511 20180325_120000 34.62 -80.20 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000064
ANOWPM 1AD6E152 20180325_120000 33.01 -80.96 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000088
ANOWPM 1AD819D1 20180325_120000 33.74 -81.85 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000060
ANOWPM 1AD8B613 20180325_120000 34.21 -79.77 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000058
ANOWPM 1ADC1178 20180325_120000 34.05 -81.15 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000097
ANOWPM 1ADD9811 20180325_120000 34.81 -83.24 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000032
ANOWPM 1ADE8277 20180325_120000 34.09 -80.96 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000062
ANOWPM 1ADF1EBB 20180325_120000 34.96 -81.92 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000066
ANOWPM 1B6CB8B3 20180325_120000 44.35 -96.81 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000004
ANOWPM 1B6F77D2 20180325_120000 44.90 -97.13 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000045
ANOWPM 1B701494 20180325_120000 43.56 -103.48 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000029
ANOWPM 1B74F613 20180325_120000 44.37 -100.29 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000059
ANOWPM 1B75E071 20180325_120000 43.75 -101.94 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000088
ANOWPM 1B7A2638 20180325_120000 43.55 -96.70 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000042
ANOWPM 1B7AC284 20180325_120000 44.09 -103.27 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000029
ANOWPM 1B7E6BF1 20180325_120000 42.75 -96.71 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000096
ANOWPM 1C05011B 20180325_120000 35.77 -83.94 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 1C050175 20180325_120000 35.63 -83.94 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000028
ANOWPM 1C0946E7 20180325_120000 36.18 -86.74 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000042
ANOWPM 1C0A7F54 20180325_120000 36.05 -89.38 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000020
ANOWPM 1C0D9C32 20180325_120000 35.05 -85.29 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000035
ANOWPM 1C11D645 20180325_120000 35.98 -83.93 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000046
ANOWPM 1C12BCB2 20180325_120000 35.12 -87.47 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000040
ANOWPM 1C13A77D 20180325_120000 35.72 -84.34 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000010
ANOWPM 1C13F91A 20180325_120000 35.45 -84.60 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000020
ANOWPM 1C14DF96 20180325_120000 35.66 -88.81 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000010
ANOWPM 1C15D1C7 20180325_120000 35.65 -87.01 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000000
ANOWPM 1C16B841 20180325_120000 36.51 -87.33 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000010
ANOWPM 1C192555 20180325_120000 36.19 -85.49 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000000
ANOWPM 1C19C194 20180325_120000 35.94 -84.54 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000020
ANOWPM 1C1B969B 20180325_120000 35.15 -89.85 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000027
ANOWPM 1C1C849F 20180325_120000 36.54 -82.52 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 1C1CCED7 20180325_120000 36.30 -86.65 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000010
ANOWPM 1CA0A4F0 20180325_120000 29.51 -98.62 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000075
ANOWPM 1CA0A50B 20180325_120000 29.28 -98.31 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000083
ANOWPM 1CA0A774 20180325_120000 29.33 -98.55 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000077
ANOWPM 1CA0A775 20180325_120000 29.42 -98.58 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000088
ANOWPM 1CA1E157 20180325_120000 33.44 -94.08 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000137
ANOWPM 1CA58EA4 20180325_120000 26.07 -97.17 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000125
ANOWPM 1CAEAEB2 20180325_120000 33.19 -97.19 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000495
ANOWPM 1CB0D566 20180325_120000 31.87 -102.33 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000089
ANOWPM 1CB16DC0 20180325_120000 32.48 -97.03 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000125
ANOWPM 1CB1BBF5 20180325_120000 31.77 -106.50 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000049
ANOWPM 1CB1BBFC 20180325_120000 31.77 -106.46 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000180
ANOWPM 1CB1BC07 20180325_120000 31.75 -106.40 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000051
ANOWPM 1CB1BC09 20180325_120000 31.67 -106.29 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000042
ANOWPM 1CB2F451 20180325_120000 29.96 -96.75 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000068
ANOWPM 1CB5B77A 20180325_120000 29.26 -94.86 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000100
ANOWPM 1CBAE3A8 20180325_120000 29.90 -95.33 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000090
ANOWPM 1CBAE3CA 20180325_120000 29.77 -95.03 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000160
ANOWPM 1CBAE79A 20180325_120000 29.77 -95.22 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000200
ANOWPM 1CBAE79B 20180325_120000 29.73 -95.26 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000124
ANOWPM 1CBAE79F 20180325_120000 29.67 -95.13 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000096
ANOWPM 1CBAE7AA 20180325_120000 29.58 -95.02 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000052
ANOWPM 1CBB31B2 20180325_120000 32.67 -94.17 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000107
ANOWPM 1CC19A65 20180325_120000 29.92 -93.91 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000160
ANOWPM 1CC19A66 20180325_120000 29.86 -94.32 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000140
ANOWPM 1CC36F15 20180325_120000 32.56 -96.32 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000137
ANOWPM 1CCA77F4 20180325_120000 33.59 -101.79 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000074
ANOWPM 1CCB625D 20180325_120000 31.65 -97.07 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000078
ANOWPM 1CCD8134 20180325_120000 28.70 -100.45 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000092
ANOWPM 1CCFF27E 20180325_120000 30.35 -95.42 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000078
ANOWPM 1CD17CEB 20180325_120000 32.03 -96.40 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000092
ANOWPM 1CD26352 20180325_120000 27.81 -97.47 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000145
ANOWPM 1CD351DC 20180325_120000 30.18 -93.87 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000070
ANOWPM 1CD571B0 20180325_120000 35.20 -101.91 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000042
ANOWPM 1CDF385E 20180325_120000 32.76 -97.34 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000344
ANOWPM 1CDF4033 20180325_120000 32.66 -97.09 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000286
ANOWPM 1CE1575E 20180325_120000 30.35 -97.76 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000067
ANOWPM 1CE15765 20180325_120000 30.26 -97.71 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000130
ANOWPM 1D3543B3 20180325_120000 41.49 -112.02 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000025
ANOWPM 1D3591D7 20180325_120000 41.84 -111.85 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000011
ANOWPM 1D367C34 20180325_120000 40.90 -111.89 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000145
ANOWPM 1D36CA52 20180325_120000 40.29 -110.01 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000052
ANOWPM 1D3A3175 20180325_120000 40.50 -112.04 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000025
ANOWPM 1D3BAC54 20180325_120000 40.60 -112.35 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000037
ANOWPM 1D3BFE5C 20180325_120000 40.46 -109.56 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000035
ANOWPM 1D3C5831 20180325_120000 40.34 -111.71 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000022
ANOWPM 1D3C5C22 20180325_120000 40.14 -111.66 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000035
ANOWPM 1D3CE4D7 20180325_120000 37.18 -113.30 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000024
ANOWPM 1D3D8112 20180325_120000 41.21 -111.97 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000052
ANOWPM 1DCDDA34 20180325_120000 42.89 -73.25 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000066
ANOWPM 1DCE7677 20180325_120000 44.53 -72.87 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000064
ANOWPM 1DCE767E 20180325_120000 44.48 -73.21 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000047
ANOWPM 1DD09952 20180325_120000 43.61 -72.98 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000071
ANOWPM 1E6EFC4E 20180325_120000 38.77 -77.11 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000046
ANOWPM 1E7082DA 20180325_120000 39.28 -78.08 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000033
ANOWPM 1E7341FE 20180325_120000 37.56 -77.40 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000098
ANOWPM 1E7E907C 20180325_120000 37.29 -79.88 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000082
ANOWPM 1EC92A28 20180325_120000 37.10 -76.39 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000064
ANOWPM 1F974F93 20180325_120000 47.13 -118.38 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000101
ANOWPM 1F979DB4 20180325_120000 46.43 -117.06 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000063
ANOWPM 1F97EBD2 20180325_120000 46.22 -119.20 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000024
ANOWPM 1F9839F7 20180325_120000 47.84 -120.02 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000016
ANOWPM 1F9839FA 20180325_120000 47.60 -120.66 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000015
ANOWPM 1F9839FB 20180325_120000 47.43 -120.34 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000038
ANOWPM 1F98881D 20180325_120000 48.29 -124.62 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000009
ANOWPM 1F98881F 20180325_120000 48.37 -124.61 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000028
ANOWPM 1F988821 20180325_120000 48.12 -123.44 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000039
ANOWPM 1F98D646 20180325_120000 45.86 -122.41 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000028
ANOWPM 1F98D648 20180325_120000 45.64 -122.59 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000090
ANOWPM 1F992452 20180325_120000 46.32 -117.98 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000006
ANOWPM 1F99727F 20180325_120000 46.14 -122.96 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000038
ANOWPM 1F9A5CD2 20180325_120000 46.58 -119.00 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000025
ANOWPM 1F9AFCFA 20180325_120000 47.13 -119.27 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000039
ANOWPM 1F9B473B 20180325_120000 47.34 -124.29 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000000
ANOWPM 1F9B4F02 20180325_120000 46.98 -123.83 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000029
ANOWPM 1F9BBC5F 20180325_120000 48.29 -122.66 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000001
ANOWPM 1F9BE373 20180325_120000 48.13 -122.78 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000052
ANOWPM 1F9C31A1 20180325_120000 47.49 -121.77 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000032
ANOWPM 1F9C31AE 20180325_120000 47.60 -122.32 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000100
ANOWPM 1F9C31AF 20180325_120000 47.60 -122.15 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000043
ANOWPM 1F9C31C9 20180325_120000 47.56 -122.34 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000124
ANOWPM 1F9C31E0 20180325_120000 47.57 -122.31 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000080
ANOWPM 1F9C3583 20180325_120000 47.53 -122.32 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000108
ANOWPM 1F9C3964 20180325_120000 47.39 -122.23 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000095
ANOWPM 1F9C7FB7 20180325_120000 47.59 -122.63 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000031
ANOWPM 1F9CCDD2 20180325_120000 46.99 -120.54 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000070
ANOWPM 1F9D6A14 20180325_120000 46.66 -122.97 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000022
ANOWPM 1F9E0657 20180325_120000 47.21 -123.10 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000057
ANOWPM 1F9E5474 20180325_120000 48.37 -119.57 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000061
ANOWPM 1F9E5479 20180325_120000 48.36 -120.12 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000079
ANOWPM 1F9E547A 20180325_120000 48.48 -120.19 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000013
ANOWPM 1F9E547D 20180325_120000 48.40 -119.52 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000070
ANOWPM 1F9F3EE8 20180325_120000 47.23 -122.46 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000050
ANOWPM 1F9F3EED 20180325_120000 47.19 -122.45 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000063
ANOWPM 1F9F3EEF 20180325_120000 47.27 -122.39 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000050
ANOWPM 1F9F42CA 20180325_120000 47.14 -122.30 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000045
ANOWPM 1F9FDB1B 20180325_120000 48.52 -122.61 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000060
ANOWPM 1F9FDB1F 20180325_120000 48.41 -122.34 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000025
ANOWPM 1FA0021F 20180325_120000 48.47 -122.56 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000012
ANOWPM 1FA07755 20180325_120000 47.81 -122.32 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000183
ANOWPM 1FA07764 20180325_120000 48.25 -121.60 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000036
ANOWPM 1FA07B3F 20180325_120000 48.06 -122.18 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000126
ANOWPM 1FA0C585 20180325_120000 47.67 -117.36 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000090
ANOWPM 1FA0C59F 20180325_120000 47.70 -117.43 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000085
ANOWPM 1FA0EC7B 20180325_120000 47.81 -117.34 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000085
ANOWPM 1FA0EC7D 20180325_120000 47.66 -117.26 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000120
ANOWPM 1FA0EC7F 20180325_120000 47.65 -117.59 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000056
ANOWPM 1FA11392 20180325_120000 47.89 -117.99 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000031
ANOWPM 1FA11395 20180325_120000 48.54 -117.90 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000063
ANOWPM 1FA161BD 20180325_120000 47.03 -122.82 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000038
ANOWPM 1FA1FDF5 20180325_120000 46.06 -118.35 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000011
ANOWPM 1FA24C23 20180325_120000 48.76 -122.46 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000000
ANOWPM 1FA29A33 20180325_120000 46.72 -117.18 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000018
ANOWPM 1FA29A35 20180325_120000 46.82 -117.87 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000012
ANOWPM 1FA29A36 20180325_120000 47.23 -117.37 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000052
ANOWPM 1FA2E855 20180325_120000 46.32 -120.00 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000048
ANOWPM 1FA2E859 20180325_120000 46.59 -120.51 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000070
ANOWPM 1FA2E85F 20180325_120000 46.38 -120.33 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000050
ANOWPM 1FA2E860 20180325_120000 46.38 -120.73 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000004
ANOWPM 2035B284 20180325_120000 38.35 -81.62 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000120
ANOWPM 20378B1A 20180325_120000 39.92 -80.73 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000027
ANOWPM 20C9B515 20180325_120000 44.52 -87.99 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000060
ANOWPM 20CC2639 20180325_120000 43.10 -89.36 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000020
ANOWPM 20CC7431 20180325_120000 43.47 -88.62 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000020
ANOWPM 20CDACBE 20180325_120000 44.76 -91.41 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000060
ANOWPM 20CE9717 20180325_120000 45.56 -88.81 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000010
ANOWPM 20CEE539 20180325_120000 42.69 -90.70 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 20D15643 20180325_120000 42.50 -87.81 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 20D1F27C 20180325_120000 43.78 -91.22 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000010
ANOWPM 20D4637A 20180325_120000 43.02 -87.93 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 20D4638A 20180325_120000 43.06 -87.91 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 20D463A8 20180325_120000 42.93 -87.93 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000040
ANOWPM 20D463AA 20180325_120000 42.93 -87.93 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 20D59BF9 20180325_120000 44.31 -88.40 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000010
ANOWPM 20D5EA19 20180325_120000 43.50 -87.81 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000020
ANOWPM 20D94577 20180325_120000 43.44 -89.68 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000010
ANOWPM 20DA9D31 20180325_120000 45.20 -90.60 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 20DB6851 20180325_120000 46.05 -89.65 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 20DCA0EB 20180325_120000 43.02 -88.21 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000050
ANOWPM 2161131A 20180325_120000 41.30 -105.59 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 2162E833 20180325_120000 42.53 -108.72 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000000
ANOWPM 216420B4 20180325_120000 41.18 -104.78 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000040
ANOWPM 2165F516 20180325_120000 44.80 -106.96 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000030
ANOWPM 2FAF562C 20180325_120000 32.63 -115.45 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000320
ANOWPM 2FAF562E 20180325_120000 32.63 -115.50 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000080
ANOWPM 2FB067B2 20180325_120000 19.30 -99.07 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000520
ANOWPM 2FB067BB 20180325_120000 19.36 -99.26 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000050
ANOWPM 2FB067D8 20180325_120000 19.36 -99.07 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000400
ANOWPM 2FB0682A 20180325_120000 19.41 -99.15 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000210
ANOWPM 2FB0683B 20180325_120000 19.42 -99.12 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000200
ANOWPM 2FB1533D 20180325_120000 19.53 -99.03 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000120
ANOWPM 2FB1533E 20180325_120000 19.53 -99.08 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000430
ANOWPM 2FB15435 20180325_120000 19.39 -99.03 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000470
ANOWPM 2FB15601 20180325_120000 19.53 -99.20 NA COPOPM 3600 0 0
0.0000000140
NULL
------------------------------------------------
Subject: verifying ozone
From: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
Time: Thu Mar 29 06:32:47 2018
Hi, John,
Reminder that the file we need to use for PM is
aqm.t12z.anowpm.pb.tm024 of
the next day, not tm00 of the current day.
Thanks!
Perry
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 5:08 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> Perry,
>
> This is great. Thanks for sending the sample data. I pulled it
over and
> ran both an ANOWPM (aqm.t12z.anowpm.pb.tm00) and AIRNOW
> (aqm.t12z.prepbufr.tm00) file through PB2NC. Adding ANOWPM was
literally a
> 1-line change in PB2NC.
>
> Next, I ran pb2nc on two sample files, as shown below (I attached
the
> config file I used, but I'm just requesting "COPO" and "COPOPM"):
>
> pb2nc \
> ./airnow/hourly.20180325/aqm.t12z.anowpm.pb.tm00 \
> ./airnow/hourly.20180325/aqm.t12z.anowpm.pb.tm00.nc \
> PB2NCConfig -log run_pb2nc.log
>
> pb2nc \
> airnow/hourly.20180325/aqm.t12z.prepbufr.tm00 \
> airnow/hourly.20180325/aqm.t12z.prepbufr.tm00.nc \
> PB2NCConfig -log run_pb2nc.log
>
> Next, I dumped the resulting NetCDF files to ascii like this:
>
> Rscript met/scripts/Rscripts/pntnc2ascii.R airnow/hourly.20180325/
> aqm.t12z.prepbufr.tm00.nc > aqm.t12z.prepbufr.tm00.txt
> Rscriptmet/scripts/Rscripts/pntnc2ascii.R ./airnow/hourly.20180325/
> aqm.t12z.anowpm.pb.tm00.nc > aqm.t12z.anowpm.pb.tm00.txt
>
> And I've attached the resulting text files.
>
> I *think* they look good but thought you should take a look at the
data to
> be sure. Note that the 8th column is the "accumulation interval" or
in our
> case, averaging interval, in seconds. So 3600 means 1 hour and
28800 means
> 8 hours.
>
> Please look at the 3rd column, which is the valid time in
YYYYMMDD_HHMMSS
> format. Notice that the valid time remains constant for all these
> observations. Is that correct? Is that what you'd expect?
>
> I'm going to be out of the office Thurs/Fri during my kid's spring
break.
>
> I don't want to slow you down, so I think now is a good time to do
the
> met-7.1_beta2 release.
>
> That way Julie can install it on WCOSS while she's patching met-7.0.
>
> So I'll do that this afternoon before heading out of the office.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 1:51 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> >
> > Hi, John,
> >
> > Super, thanks!
> >
> > Perry
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 3:50 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Perry,
> > >
> > > Yep, the bug was introduced in met-7.0... and stuck around for
> > > met-7.1_beta1. Howard added a fix to both the met trunk and the
> > > met-7.0_bugfix branch... and I posted the fixes to the MET
website:
> > > https://dtcenter.org/met/users/support/known_issues/
> METv7.0/index.php
> > >
> > > Julie is back in the office tomorrow and will patch the 7.0
build and
> > > compile met-7.1_beta2 once I have it ready.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > John
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 12:22 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT
<
> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
>
> > > >
> > > > Hi, Julie,
> > > >
> > > > Just an FYI - I just ran the 7.0 version of MET and it also
failed
> with
> > > the
> > > > same error, interestingly. But others did not report a
problem like
> > this
> > > > in 7.0? Weird.
> > > >
> > > > Perry
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Julie Prestopnik via RT <
> > > > met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Perry.
> > > > >
> > > > > I can reproduce the problem on both tide and our local
machine. It
> > > looks
> > > > > like an issue with the logic in when writing to the NetCDF
output
> > file.
> > > > > One of our software developers in working on the problem.
We will
> > let
> > > > you
> > > > > know when it is resolved.
> > > > >
> > > > > I will be out of the office this coming Monday - Wednesday,
just
> FYI,
> > > so
> > > > I
> > > > > may not be able to recompile on tide until next week.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regarding your question about the 7.1 beta, I think you are
> probably
> > > the
> > > > > only one who knows about the 7.1 beta, but I don't think it
would
> be
> > a
> > > > > problem if you mentioned it to your colleagues.
> > > > >
> > > > > Julie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:20 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via
RT <
> > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi, Julie,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yikes, it's all part a script, and it's not quite the
usage. But
> > > here
> > > > > are
> > > > > > the commands used from the output:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > pb2nc prepda.2018032200 prepda.nc.2018032200
> > > > > > /meso/save/Perry.Shafran/verif/nwtest/parm/PB2NCConfig -v
> > > > > > 3
> > > > > >
> > > > > > point_stat AWIP3D00.tm00 prepda.nc.2018032200
> > > > > >
/meso/save/Perry.Shafran/verif/nwtest/parm/PointStatConfig_cv
> -v 3
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You can run these if you go to the directory
> > > > > > /stmpp2/Perry.Shafran/tmpnwtest/verf_gridtobs_nam_00/00.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > BTW - am I the only one who knows about the 7.1 beta? In
case
> I'm
> > > not
> > > > > > supposed to bring it up among my colleagues?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Perry
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Julie Prestopnik via RT <
> > > > > > met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Perry. My apologies for the delay in responding. I
was out
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > > office.
> > > > > > > I have copied over your script and would like to run it
to see
> > if I
> > > > can
> > > > > > > reproduce the error. I see the usage is:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > verf_gridtobs.sh $model $vday $vcyc
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can you please send me the exact command line you are
running
> so
> > > > that I
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > try to reproduce the error? Or, to simply things you
could send
> > me
> > > a
> > > > > > single
> > > > > > > command line for pb2nc and point_stat so that I can run
that.
> > The
> > > > > latter
> > > > > > > option would be preferable in case my environment isn't
set up
> as
> > > > yours
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > with all necessary items.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Julie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 2:28 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov
via
> RT <
> > > > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi there,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am trying out the new 7.1 beta, and I got this error
in
> both
> > > > pb2nc
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > point_stat (except for point_stat replace the 146 in
the
> error
> > > with
> > > > > > 80):
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > terminate called after throwing an instance of
> > > > > > > > 'netCDF::exceptions::NcBadId'
> > > > > > > > what(): NetCDF: Not a valid ID
> > > > > > > > file: ncVar.cpp line:146
> > > > > > > > /meso/save/Perry.Shafran/verif/nwtest/ush/verf_
> > > > > gridtobs_fits.sh[143]:
> > > > > > .:
> > > > > > > > line 217:
> > > > > > > > 41145: Abort(coredump)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Any idea what the issue is here?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Perry
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Perry Shafran - NOAA
> > Affiliate <
> > > > > > > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi, Julie,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Perry
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 2:50 PM, Julie Prestopnik
via RT <
> > > > > > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> Hi Perry.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> met-7.1_beta1 is now installed on tide. You can
access it
> > by
> > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> following:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> module use
/global/noscrub/Julie.Prestopnik/modulefiles
> > > > > > > > >> module load met/7.1_beta1
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Please let me know if you have any questions or
encounter
> > any
> > > > > > > problems.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >> Julie
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 3:41 PM, John Halley Gotway
<
> > > > > > johnhg at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > Perry and Julie,
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > I just created a met-7.1_beta1 release to enable
Perry
> to
> > do
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > testing
> > > > > > > > >> > he needs.
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > I posted the tarball to the MET website:
> > > > > > > > >> > www.dtcenter.org/met/users/
> > downloads/MET_releases/met-7.
> > > > > > > > >> > 1_beta1.20180316.tar.gz
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > Perry, I assume it'd be most convenient for you
to have
> > this
> > > > > > > available
> > > > > > > > >> on
> > > > > > > > >> > WCOSS for testing? If not, please let us know
where.
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > Julie, assuming Perry wants it on the dev side of
WCOSS,
> > can
> > > > you
> > > > > > > > please
> > > > > > > > >> > install it in your personal area, and tell Perry
how he
> > can
> > > > > access
> > > > > > > it?
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > Here's the very short list of changes included in
> > > > met-7.1_beta1
> > > > > > > (taken
> > > > > > > > >> > from the top-level README file):
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > Version 7.1 BETA 1 Release Notes:
> > > > > > > > >> > --------------------------------
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > - Make logic for finding matching UGRD/VGRD
verification
> > > tasks
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > >> robust
> > > > > > > > >> > in
> > > > > > > > >> > Point-Stat and Grid-Stat.
> > > > > > > > >> > - Fix PB2NC's computation of valid time for
AIRNOW
> > > > observations.
> > > > > > > > >> > - Minor bugfix for Series-Analysis when computing
> min/max
> > > > timing
> > > > > > > info
> > > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > >> > series with some missing input files.
> > > > > > > > >> > - Enable vld_thresh = 0 in Ensemble-Stat and
> > > Series-Analysis.
> > > > > > > > >> > - Update pntnc2ascii.R Rscript to handle obs_var
> variable.
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >> > John
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 6:46 AM,
perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > via
> > > > RT
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> Hi, John,
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> At this point my main concern is the ability to
run MET
> > and
> > > > get
> > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > >> MET
> > > > > > > > >> >> output on some of the air quality items. Then
once
> > that's
> > > > > done,
> > > > > > > > worry
> > > > > > > > >> >> later about METViewer concerns. I do think
we'll want
> to
> > > > > > > eventually
> > > > > > > > >> >> compare VSDB vs MET output using METViewer, but
that
> > seems
> > > to
> > > > > be
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > down
> > > > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > >> >> road issue (though not too far down the road, so
if
> there
> > > is
> > > > a
> > > > > > > > >> METViewer
> > > > > > > > >> >> update coming up, put this in it).
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> Thanks!
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> Perry
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 5:31 PM, John Halley
Gotway via
> > RT
> > > <
> > > > > > > > >> >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > Perry,
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > On Monday, we decided that I should do the
first (and
> > > very
> > > > > > early)
> > > > > > > > >> beta
> > > > > > > > >> >> > release of met-7.1 to get this feature to you
for
> > > testing.
> > > > > But
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > >> >> > version really shouldn't be used for anything
other
> > than
> > > > > > testing.
> > > > > > > > >> Since
> > > > > > > > >> >> > this is a beta version for 7.1, my inclination
would
> be
> > > to
> > > > > > > > increment
> > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > version number of the output now... to 7.1.
The only
> > > > > downside
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> that
> > > > > > > > >> >> it
> > > > > > > > >> >> > won't be possible to load 7.1 output in
METViewer.
> The
> > > > > loader
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > >> >> error
> > > > > > > > >> >> > out and say that it doesn't know anything
about
> version
> > > > 7.1.
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > If you need to be able to load this output
into
> > > METViewer,
> > > > we
> > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > >> >> keep
> > > > > > > > >> >> > the version number back at 7.0... but I'm
really
> > worried
> > > > > about
> > > > > > > > >> >> version-itis
> > > > > > > > >> >> > here. I don't want to create a confusing mess
of
> > output.
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > Any thoughts?
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > John
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:57 AM,
> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > via
> > > > > > RT
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > >> >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Tic
> > > > > > ket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > Hi, John,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > I'm not sure I caught whether you have
something
> for
> > me
> > > > to
> > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > >> >> not.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > I
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > think you were asking how to deliver these
updates
> > for
> > > > > ozone
> > > > > > > so I
> > > > > > > > >> >> guess
> > > > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > need to deliver first before I can test
anything.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > Perry
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Perry
Shafran -
> NOAA
> > > > > > Affiliate
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > Hi, John,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > Super, thanks! Let me know if there are
any
> > aspects
> > > of
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> need
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > clarification.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > Perry
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:48 PM, John
Halley
> Gotway
> > > via
> > > > > RT <
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> Perry,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> Yes, I received it. Thanks for the info.
I
> wrote
> > > up
> > > > a
> > > > > > > > >> development
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > ticket
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> in JiRA to handle this and Howard Soh is
taking
> a
> > > look
> > > > > at
> > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > >> I'll
> > > > > > > > >> >> > let
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> you
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> know when we have an update for you.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> John
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:31 PM,
> > > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > via
> > > > > > > > RT <
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > > > > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Hi, John,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > I was just wondering if you got this
message
> > > > regarding
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> DHR in
> > > > > > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> ozone
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > airnow file. I hadn't received any
> > > acknowledgement
> > > > of
> > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > >> >> think
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> that if
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > we are going to read this data
correctly for
> > > > > > verification,
> > > > > > > > >> we'll
> > > > > > > > >> >> > have
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> to be
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > aware of this and use the DHR to add
DHR to
> the
> > > > file's
> > > > > > > > >> timestamp
> > > > > > > > >> >> in
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> order
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > to get the right ob at the right time.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Perry
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Perry
> Shafran -
> > > > NOAA
> > > > > > > > >> Affiliate <
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > Hi, John,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > For ozone (and for PM likely as
well), the
> DHR
> > > > will
> > > > > > tell
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > time
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> of
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > the observation. The DHR ranges from
-11 to
> > 12
> > > in
> > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > >> file,
> > > > > > > > >> >> so
> > > > > > > > >> >> > if
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> you
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > have an observation with DHR of -10,
for
> > > example,
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> >> > observations
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > is
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > valid at 02Z. I guess I should have
done
> > better
> > > > to
> > > > > > note
> > > > > > > > >> this
> > > > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > previously, but you will need this
> additional
> > > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > >> >> order
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> get
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > the valid time of the observation.
My
> > apologies
> > > > for
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > >> >> realizing
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> this
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > sooner (like before 7.0 was
released).
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > The 00Z valid time (as in your
example), I
> > just
> > > > > > > realized,
> > > > > > > > >> is a
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > special
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > case. Since the DHR ranges from -11
to 12,
> > that
> > > > > means
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > valid
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > times
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > in the file range from 01Z to 00Z the
next
> > day.
> > > > > > That's
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> >> reason
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > for
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > this
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > - it is indeed the 2017080912
> > <(201)%20708-0912>
> > > > > > <(201)%20708-0912>
> > > > > > > > >> <(201)%20708-0912>
> > > > > > > > >> >> <(201)%20708-0912> file but this
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> particular
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > valid time is 2017081000
<(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > > > >> >> <(201)%20708-1000> because DHR is 12 in
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > this
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > case. So that makes it extra special
fun
> for
> > > > > > verifying
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > 00Z
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> valid
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > time, since we will have to go to the
> previous
> > > > day's
> > > > > > obs
> > > > > > > > >> file
> > > > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> verify
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > that. Every other hour of the day,
you
> won't
> > > see
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > >> >> mismatch.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > Perry
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:59 AM, John
Halley
> > > > Gotway
> > > > > > via
> > > > > > > > RT <
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> Perry,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> Yes, I see that all the AWIP* GRIB2
files
> you
> > > > sent
> > > > > me
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > >> >> valid
> > > > > > > > >> >> > at
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> 2017081000.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> However, the point observations in
the
> > prepda.
> > > > > > > 2017081000
> > > > > > > > >> are
> > > > > > > > >> >> > valid
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> at
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> 20170809_120000. Or at least that's
what
> the
> > > > > output
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> PB2NC
> > > > > > > > >> >> > tells
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> me!
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> The timestamps of the data contained
in
> > prepda.
> > > > > > > > 2017081000
> > > > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> 12-hours
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> earlier than the timestamp of that
file
> > > > indicates.
> > > > > > > > Here's
> > > > > > > > >> a
> > > > > > > > >> >> log
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> message
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> from PB2NC listing out the "center
time"
> for
> > > that
> > > > > > file:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> DEBUG 1: Processing Bufr File:
prepda.
> > > > > 2017081000
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> DEBUG 2: Bufr Time Center:
> > > > 20170809_120000
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> Perhaps there's a problem in the
naming
> > > > convention
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > "prepda"
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> file... or perhaps there's a good
reason
> for
> > > the
> > > > > > > 12-hour
> > > > > > > > >> >> > offset...
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > or
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> perhaps there's some problem in the
MET
> code
> > > and
> > > > > > we're
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > >> >> > reading
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> data
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> from that file correctly?
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> John
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:37 AM,
> > > > > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > > > via
> > > > > > > > >> >> RT <
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Tic
> > > > > > > > >> >> ket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > OK, thanks! So this is included
in the
> > > latest
> > > > > MET
> > > > > > > > >> release.
> > > > > > > > >> >> I
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > think
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> there
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > will definitely be other
questions, if I
> > want
> > > > to
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > verify
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > each
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > hourly forecast of ozone with the
> > > observation.
> > > > > The
> > > > > > > DHR
> > > > > > > > >> >> tells
> > > > > > > > >> >> > us
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> which
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> hour
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > that we are looking for to verify.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > Perry
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:25 AM,
John
> > Halley
> > > > > Gotway
> > > > > > > via
> > > > > > > > >> RT <
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > Hi Perry,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > We just posted the met-7.0
release
> > > yesterday.
> > > > > > > Julie
> > > > > > > > >> >> > Prestopnik
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> is
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > actually
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > out at NCEP today, and she'll be
the
> one
> > to
> > > > > > install
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> on
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> WCOSS. So
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> I'll
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > let her chime in to let us know
when
> > she's
> > > > able
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > >> >> that.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > John
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:27 AM,
> > > > > > > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > > > >> >> via
> > > > > > > > >> >> > RT
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > <
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > I am able to start working on
this
> > today.
> > > > Is
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > >> >> > available
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> for
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > testing
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > now?
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Also I'm not entirely sure
what you
> > mean
> > > in
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> obs
> > > > > > > > >> >> > and
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> model
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > don't match up well in time?
In the
> > > > example
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > sent
> > > > > > > > >> you,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> have
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > a
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> set
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > of
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > observations and all the
forecast
> files
> > > > that
> > > > > > > verify
> > > > > > > > >> at
> > > > > > > > >> >> that
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> particular
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > time. Both the model and
observed
> bufr
> > > > file
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > >> >> 1-hourly
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> fields
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > (hourly
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > fields of 1-hr and hourly
fields of
> > 8-hr
> > > > > ozone
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > >> kind of
> > > > > > > > >> >> > hard
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> to
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > imagine
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > that, but they are just
values). So
> we
> > > > will
> > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > >> need a
> > > > > > > > >> >> > way
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> match
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > up
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > the observed field with the
modeled
> > field
> > > > at
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > corresponding
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > time.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > (For
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > example, matching the 3-hr
forecast
> > from
> > > > the
> > > > > > 12Z
> > > > > > > > >> model
> > > > > > > > >> >> run
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > with
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> 15Z
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > observed field.)
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > I think this is best achieved
with a
> > > > > different
> > > > > > > > >> >> execution of
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> point_stat
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > for
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > each individual hour, because
that's
> > how
> > > I
> > > > do
> > > > > > > > >> gridtobs
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > anyway.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > What are your thoughts on the
above?
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Perry
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:32
PM, John
> > > Halley
> > > > > > > Gotway
> > > > > > > > >> via
> > > > > > > > >> >> RT <
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Hi Perry,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Howard Soh updated the logic
in the
> > > PB2NC
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > >> >> the 1
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > and
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> 8-hour
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > COPO
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > observations in the way we
> discussed.
> > > I
> > > > > > wanted
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> let
> > > > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> know
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> that
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > I
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > tested it this afternoon and
got
> some
> > > > good
> > > > > > > > results.
> > > > > > > > >> >> The
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> sample
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > fcst/obs
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > data you sent doesn't line
up well
> in
> > > > time,
> > > > > > so
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > >> just
> > > > > > > > >> >> > set a
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> very
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > large
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > matching time window in
Point-Stat.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Here's the relevant pieces
of the
> > > > > Point-Stat
> > > > > > > > config
> > > > > > > > >> >> file:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > fcst = {
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > field = [
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "OZCON";
level =
> > "A01";
> > > },
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "OZCON";
level =
> > "A08";
> > > }
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > ];
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > }
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > obs = {
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > message_type = [
"AIRNOW" ];
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > convert(x) = x*10^9;
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > field = [
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level
=
> "A01";
> > > },
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level
=
> > "A08"; }
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > ];
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > }
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > And I'm just *guessing* at
that
> > > > conversion
> > > > > > > > factor.
> > > > > > > > >> >> The
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > resulting
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > numbers
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > look about right, but its up
to you
> > to
> > > > > > confirm.
> > > > > > > > >> Using
> > > > > > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > sample
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > data
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > you
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > sent me, this results in a
mean
> error
> > > > value
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> 12.64
> > > > > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> 15.48
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > for
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > 1
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > and 8-hour accums,
respectively.
> But
> > > the
> > > > > > > > fcst/obs
> > > > > > > > >> >> data
> > > > > > > > >> >> > are
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> actually
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > offset
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > by 12 hours so these numbers
don't
> > mean
> > > > > much,
> > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > >> >> than
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > demonstrating
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > there isn't a huge order of
> magnitude
> > > > > > > difference.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > John
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:06
PM,
> John
> > > > > Halley
> > > > > > > > >> Gotway <
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> johnhg at ucar.edu
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > Perry,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > I think I prefer option 2
as
> well.
> > > > I'll
> > > > > > ask
> > > > > > > > >> Howard
> > > > > > > > >> >> > Soh,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> one
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > of
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > developers here, to add
specific
> > > logic
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> >> AIRNOW
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> message
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> type,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > where...
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > - level = absolute
value of
> TPHR
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > - qc flag = QCIND
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > John
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at
2:00 PM,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> via
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > RT
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> <
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <URL:
> https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Hi, John,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> What would be easier in
> comparing
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > > model
> > > > > > > > >> >> output,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > do
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> you
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > think?
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > I
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> think that having it as
some
> sort
> > of
> > > > > > > > >> "accumulation
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> variable"
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> (the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > 2nd
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> option) would work.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> In the model, though,
they are
> not
> > > > > listed
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > >> >> either 1
> > > > > > > > >> >> > or
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> 8 hr
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> accumulations/averages.
They
> are
> > > > listed
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > >> either,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > for
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > example
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > for
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > 24
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> hr forecast, either "23-
24 hr
> ave
> > > > fcst"
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > > >> "16-24
> > > > > > > > >> >> hr
> > > > > > > > >> >> > ave
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > fcst".
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > Would
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> easier if it said "1 hr
ave
> fcst"
> > or
> > > > "8
> > > > > hr
> > > > > > > ave
> > > > > > > > >> >> fcst",
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > but
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> again,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > that's
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> not
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> what we got. So I'm
guessing
> that
> > > > might
> > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > >> it a
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > little
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > more
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > challenging
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> for the model to script
up?
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Perry
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at
3:50 PM,
> > > John
> > > > > > Halley
> > > > > > > > >> Gotway
> > > > > > > > >> >> > via
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> RT <
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Perry,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > I wanted to check how
point
> > > > > observations
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> >> precip
> > > > > > > > >> >> > are
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> stored in
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> PrepBUFR
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > so I ran PB2NC on an
old NDAS
> > file
> > > > > using
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> >> -index
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> option.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > Here's
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> what I
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > found:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP06:
TOTAL
> > > > > > PRECIPITATION
> > > > > > > > >> PAST 6
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > HOURS
> > > > types:
> > > > > > > ADPSFC
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP24:
TOTAL
> > > > > > PRECIPITATION
> > > > > > > > >> PAST 24
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > HOURS
> > > types:
> > > > > > > ADPSFC
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > So basically, the
accumulation
> > > > > interval
> > > > > > > > >> exists in
> > > > > > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > observation
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> variable
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > name. Following that
> paradigm,
> > if
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > AIRNOW
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> observations
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> were
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > stored
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > using COPO01 and
COPO08, then
> > MET
> > > > > would
> > > > > > > > >> already
> > > > > > > > >> >> be
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > able
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> to
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > handle
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > them
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > already. But I suppose
we're
> > > likely
> > > > > > stuck
> > > > > > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > >> >> what
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> we've
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> got.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > I can see 2 ways we
could
> handle
> > > > this
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> >> processing
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> AIRNOW
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > message
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > types...
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Option 1: Follow the
precip
> > > example
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > modify
> > > > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> observation
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > variable
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > names by appending the
TPHR
> > value.
> > > > > > > Instead
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> >> COPO,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> we'd
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> have
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> observations
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > named COPO01 and
COPO08. And
> if
> > > we
> > > > > ever
> > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > >> >> TPHR =
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > -24,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> that'd
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > produce
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> a
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > COPO24 variable name.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Option 2: We could keep
the
> COPO
> > > > > > variable
> > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> unchanged,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > and
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > instead
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> set
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the "level" value for
these
> > > > > observations
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> >> indicate
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > accumulation
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > interval. If you look
at the
> > > > ascii2nc
> > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > statement,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> you'll
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > see
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > following:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > "Level" is the
pressure
> level
> > > > (hPa)
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > >> >> > accumulation
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> interval
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> (HH[MMSS]).
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > So we could use the
value of
> > TPHR
> > > to
> > > > > > > define
> > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > level
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> as an
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> "accumulation"
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > interval.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Either option could be
made to
> > > work
> > > > in
> > > > > > > MET.
> > > > > > > > >> Does
> > > > > > > > >> >> > one
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> make
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> more
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > sense
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > you than the other?
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > While we're doing this,
I
> assume
> > > we
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > >> also
> > > > > > > > >> >> > using
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> QCIND
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > value
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > populate the obs_qty
(i.e.
> > quality
> > > > > > > control)
> > > > > > > > >> >> setting?
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > John
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at
1:34
> PM,
> > > > John
> > > > > > > Halley
> > > > > > > > >> >> Gotway
> > > > > > > > >> >> > <
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > johnhg at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Perry,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Until users dive into
the
> > > details,
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > won't
> > > > > > > > >> >> know
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > about
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> these
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > sorts
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> -1
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > vs -8 issues. But
once we
> > > > identify
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > requirements,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> we
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> can
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > update
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > software to handle
them.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > So please keep the
feedback
> > > > coming.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > John
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018
at 1:31
> > PM,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> via
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > RT
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > <
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu>
wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> <URL:
> > > > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Hi, John,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> OK, thanks! I
thought the
> > > latest
> > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > >> of
> > > > > > > > >> >> MET
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> that we
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> were
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > using
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> was
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> configured for the
air
> > quality
> > > > > > > > >> applications?
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Perry
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018
at
> 3:26
> > > PM,
> > > > > John
> > > > > > > > >> Halley
> > > > > > > > >> >> > Gotway
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> via
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> RT <
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu>
wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Perry,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > I just grabbed
them and
> ran
> > > the
> > > > > > > > forecast
> > > > > > > > >> >> data
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> through
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> plot_data_plane
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > utility. Looks
like
> > > specifying
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > >> >> as an
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > accumulation
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > type
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> does
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > trick:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_
> > > > > > > data_plane
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> AWIP3D18.tm00
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > OZCON_1hr.ps
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON";
> level="A1";'
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_
> > > > > > > data_plane
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> AWIP3D18.tm00
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > OZCON_8hr.ps
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON";
> level="A8";'
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > The resulting
images are
> > > > > attached.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Next, I ran pb2nc
using
> the
> > > > > -index
> > > > > > > > >> option to
> > > > > > > > >> >> > see
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > a
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > description
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > prepda contents:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/pb2nc
> > > > > > prepda.
> > > > > > > > >> >> 2017081000 <(201)%20708-1000> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
prepda.2017081000.nc
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > /usr/local/met-6.1/share/met/
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> config/PB2NCConfig_default
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > -index -log
> pb2nc_index.log
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Header
> > variables:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
SID:
> > STATION
> > > > > > > > >> IDENTIFICATION
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
XOB:
> > > LONGITUDE
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
YOB:
> > > LATITUDE
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
DHR:
> > > > OBSERVATION
> > > > > > > TIME
> > > > > > > > >> MINUS
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > CYCLE
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > TIME
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
ELV:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
TYP:
> > > PREPBUFR
> > > > > > REPORT
> > > > > > > > >> TYPE
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
T29:
> DATA
> > > DUMP
> > > > > > > REPORT
> > > > > > > > >> TYPE
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
ITP:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
Observation
> > > > > variables:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
COPO:
> > > > > CONCENTRATION
> > > > > > > OF
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > POLLUTANT
> > > > > > > > >> >> types:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> AIRNOW
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
TYPO:
> TYPE
> > OF
> > > > > > > POLLUTANT
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
CAT:
> > > PREPBUFR
> > > > > DATA
> > > > > > > > LEVEL
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > CATEGORY
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
PROCN:
> > PROCESS
> > > > > > NUMBER
> > > > > > > > FOR
> > > > > > > > >> >> THIS
> > > > > > > > >> >> > MPI
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> RUN
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > (OBTAINED
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> FROM
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > SCRIPT)
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
SQN:
> > REPORT
> > > > > > SEQUENCE
> > > > > > > > >> NUMBER
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
QCIND:
> > QUALITY
> > > > > > CONTROL
> > > > > > > > >> >> > INDICATION
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > OF
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > FOLLOWING
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DATA
types:
> > > AIRNOW
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
TSIG:
> TIME
> > > > > > > SIGNIFICANCE
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
RPT:
> > > REPORTED
> > > > > > > > >> OBSERVATION
> > > > > > > > >> >> TIME
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
TPHR:
> TIME
> > > > PERIOD
> > > > > > OR
> > > > > > > > >> >> > DISPLACEMENT
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > I see the COPO and
TPHR
> > > > > > observations
> > > > > > > > >> listed.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > We'll
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> need to
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > update
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > PB2NC code to
handle the
> > > logic
> > > > > > you've
> > > > > > > > >> >> > described.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > One option for
specifying
> > > the 1
> > > > > vs
> > > > > > 8
> > > > > > > > hour
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> difference
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> would
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > be
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> mimic
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> how
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > different precip
> > accumulation
> > > > > > > intervals
> > > > > > > > >> are
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > stored
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> for
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > gauges.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> I'll
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> look
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > more into how we
might do
> > > that.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > John
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 22,
2018 at
> > 12:17
> > > > PM,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > via
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > RT
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > <URL:
> > > > > > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Hi, John,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > I was just
wondering if
> > you
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > > found
> > > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> received
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> these
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > files.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Perry
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > On Wed, Feb 21,
2018 at
> > > 10:30
> > > > > AM,
> > > > > > > > Perry
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > Shafran -
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > NOAA
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Affiliate
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > I just
transferred
> some
> > > > model
> > > > > > > files
> > > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > >> >> an
> > > > > > > > >> >> > ob
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> file
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> here
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > on
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Theia.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> All
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > these model
files
> > verify
> > > at
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > ob
> > > > > > > > >> time
> > > > > > > > >> >> > here.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Have
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> a
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > look:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > /scratch4/NCEPDEV/meso/save/
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Perry.Shafran/for_john
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Perry
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > On Tue, Feb
20, 2018
> at
> > > > 6:55
> > > > > > PM,
> > > > > > > > John
> > > > > > > > >> >> > Halley
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Gotway
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> via
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > RT
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > <
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Hi Perry,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Can you
please point
> > me
> > > > to a
> > > > > > > model
> > > > > > > > >> >> output
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > file
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > containing
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > OZCON
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> fields?
Presumably,
> > > these
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > >> GRIB1
> > > > > > > > >> >> > or 2
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> format,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > and
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > hopefully,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> there's
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> some flag in
the
> > header
> > > > that
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > >> >> enable
> > > > > > > > >> >> > us
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > distinguish
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > between
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> GRIB
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> records
containing 1
> > > and 8
> > > > > > hour
> > > > > > > > >> >> averages.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> As for the
point
> > > > > > observations, I
> > > > > > > > >> >> suspect
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > that
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > we'll
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > need
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> add
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> logic
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > to
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> PB2NC to
distinguish
> > > > between
> > > > > > > the 1
> > > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > >> >> 8
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > hour
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > COPO
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > concentrations.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Perhaps
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> we could
update
> PB2NC
> > to
> > > > use
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> TPHR
> > > > > > > > >> >> > values
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> to
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > renamed
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > COPO
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> COPO_1
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > and
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> COPO_8?
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Are these
COPO point
> > > > > > > observations
> > > > > > > > >> >> present
> > > > > > > > >> >> > in
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> NDAS
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> or
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > GDAS
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > PrepBUFR
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > files?
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> John
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> On Tue, Feb
20, 2018
> > at
> > > > 1:40
> > > > > > PM,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > via
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> RT <
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Tue Feb 20
> 13:40:01
> > > > 2018:
> > > > > > > > Request
> > > > > > > > >> >> 84134
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > was
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > acted
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > upon.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
Transaction:
> Ticket
> > > > > created
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
Queue:
> > met_help
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
Subject:
> > > verifying
> > > > > > ozone
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
Owner:
> Nobody
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
Requestors:
> > > > > > > > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
Status: new
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Ticket
<URL:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Hi,
everyone,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I am
helping the
> AQM
> > > > group
> > > > > > > > verify
> > > > > > > > >> >> ozone
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > and
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> I
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> need
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > some
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> assistance
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > in
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> using
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > PB2NC (and
then
> > later
> > > > > > > > point_stat,
> > > > > > > > >> but
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > let's
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > start
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > with
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > PB2NC). I
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > need
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> to
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > be able to
read in
> > two
> > > > > > > > quantities
> > > > > > > > >> >> from
> > > > > > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> prepbufr
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > file
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > then
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> combine
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > that to be
able to
> > > > compare
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> two
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > model
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> items.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the bufr
file,
> > the
> > > > > > > variables
> > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > >> >> hand
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > are
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > COPO
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > (the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > ozone
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
concentration),
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > and also
TPHR.
> TPHR
> > > is
> > > > > > either
> > > > > > > > -1
> > > > > > > > >> or
> > > > > > > > >> >> -8
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> depending on
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > whether
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> observed
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > ozone is a
1-hr or
> > > 8-hr
> > > > > > > average.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In essence,
we
> have
> > > two
> > > > > > > entities
> > > > > > > > >> here
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> depending
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> on
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> value of
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > TPHR:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > 1-hr
average ozone
> > and
> > > > the
> > > > > > > 8-hr
> > > > > > > > >> >> average
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> ozone.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> But
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > they
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> have
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > same
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > value.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the
model we
> also
> > > > have
> > > > > > two
> > > > > > > > >> >> variables.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> Both
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> are
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > called
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > OZCON,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> but
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > first one
in the
> > file
> > > > is a
> > > > > > > 1-hr
> > > > > > > > >> >> average
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > and
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > second
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > one
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> is
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 8-hr
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > The trick
here is
> > > > > verifying
> > > > > > > 1-hr
> > > > > > > > >> >> average
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> with
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> 1-hr
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > average,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> 8-hr
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average
with 8-hr
> > > > average.
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > >> think
> > > > > > > > >> >> > there
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> is a
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> multiplication
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> factor
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > in
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > there
somewhere,
> as
> > > the
> > > > > obs
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > >> >> units
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > of
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > mole/mole,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > while
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > model
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> is
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > in parts
per
> billion
> > > > > (ppb).
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I don't
know if
> > you've
> > > > > > spoken
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > AQM
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> team
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> on
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > how
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> exactly
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> to do
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> this,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > but I was
hoping
> to
> > > help
> > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > >> >> this.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > If
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > you
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> can
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > advise
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> on
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> how
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > to
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > do
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > this, that
would
> be
> > > > great!
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Perry
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: verifying ozone
From: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
Time: Thu Mar 29 06:37:29 2018
Hi, John,
Also - in terms of valid time - you NEED to add the value of DHR to
the 12Z
time to get the actual valid time of that particular observation. If
you
can add that to your pb2nc processing, that would probably be what
we'd
need to do.
We can certainly pick this up next week.
Perry
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 5:08 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> Perry,
>
> This is great. Thanks for sending the sample data. I pulled it
over and
> ran both an ANOWPM (aqm.t12z.anowpm.pb.tm00) and AIRNOW
> (aqm.t12z.prepbufr.tm00) file through PB2NC. Adding ANOWPM was
literally a
> 1-line change in PB2NC.
>
> Next, I ran pb2nc on two sample files, as shown below (I attached
the
> config file I used, but I'm just requesting "COPO" and "COPOPM"):
>
> pb2nc \
> ./airnow/hourly.20180325/aqm.t12z.anowpm.pb.tm00 \
> ./airnow/hourly.20180325/aqm.t12z.anowpm.pb.tm00.nc \
> PB2NCConfig -log run_pb2nc.log
>
> pb2nc \
> airnow/hourly.20180325/aqm.t12z.prepbufr.tm00 \
> airnow/hourly.20180325/aqm.t12z.prepbufr.tm00.nc \
> PB2NCConfig -log run_pb2nc.log
>
> Next, I dumped the resulting NetCDF files to ascii like this:
>
> Rscript met/scripts/Rscripts/pntnc2ascii.R airnow/hourly.20180325/
> aqm.t12z.prepbufr.tm00.nc > aqm.t12z.prepbufr.tm00.txt
> Rscriptmet/scripts/Rscripts/pntnc2ascii.R ./airnow/hourly.20180325/
> aqm.t12z.anowpm.pb.tm00.nc > aqm.t12z.anowpm.pb.tm00.txt
>
> And I've attached the resulting text files.
>
> I *think* they look good but thought you should take a look at the
data to
> be sure. Note that the 8th column is the "accumulation interval" or
in our
> case, averaging interval, in seconds. So 3600 means 1 hour and
28800 means
> 8 hours.
>
> Please look at the 3rd column, which is the valid time in
YYYYMMDD_HHMMSS
> format. Notice that the valid time remains constant for all these
> observations. Is that correct? Is that what you'd expect?
>
> I'm going to be out of the office Thurs/Fri during my kid's spring
break.
>
> I don't want to slow you down, so I think now is a good time to do
the
> met-7.1_beta2 release.
>
> That way Julie can install it on WCOSS while she's patching met-7.0.
>
> So I'll do that this afternoon before heading out of the office.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 1:51 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> >
> > Hi, John,
> >
> > Super, thanks!
> >
> > Perry
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 3:50 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Perry,
> > >
> > > Yep, the bug was introduced in met-7.0... and stuck around for
> > > met-7.1_beta1. Howard added a fix to both the met trunk and the
> > > met-7.0_bugfix branch... and I posted the fixes to the MET
website:
> > > https://dtcenter.org/met/users/support/known_issues/
> METv7.0/index.php
> > >
> > > Julie is back in the office tomorrow and will patch the 7.0
build and
> > > compile met-7.1_beta2 once I have it ready.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > John
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 12:22 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT
<
> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
>
> > > >
> > > > Hi, Julie,
> > > >
> > > > Just an FYI - I just ran the 7.0 version of MET and it also
failed
> with
> > > the
> > > > same error, interestingly. But others did not report a
problem like
> > this
> > > > in 7.0? Weird.
> > > >
> > > > Perry
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Julie Prestopnik via RT <
> > > > met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Perry.
> > > > >
> > > > > I can reproduce the problem on both tide and our local
machine. It
> > > looks
> > > > > like an issue with the logic in when writing to the NetCDF
output
> > file.
> > > > > One of our software developers in working on the problem.
We will
> > let
> > > > you
> > > > > know when it is resolved.
> > > > >
> > > > > I will be out of the office this coming Monday - Wednesday,
just
> FYI,
> > > so
> > > > I
> > > > > may not be able to recompile on tide until next week.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regarding your question about the 7.1 beta, I think you are
> probably
> > > the
> > > > > only one who knows about the 7.1 beta, but I don't think it
would
> be
> > a
> > > > > problem if you mentioned it to your colleagues.
> > > > >
> > > > > Julie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:20 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via
RT <
> > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi, Julie,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yikes, it's all part a script, and it's not quite the
usage. But
> > > here
> > > > > are
> > > > > > the commands used from the output:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > pb2nc prepda.2018032200 prepda.nc.2018032200
> > > > > > /meso/save/Perry.Shafran/verif/nwtest/parm/PB2NCConfig -v
> > > > > > 3
> > > > > >
> > > > > > point_stat AWIP3D00.tm00 prepda.nc.2018032200
> > > > > >
/meso/save/Perry.Shafran/verif/nwtest/parm/PointStatConfig_cv
> -v 3
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You can run these if you go to the directory
> > > > > > /stmpp2/Perry.Shafran/tmpnwtest/verf_gridtobs_nam_00/00.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > BTW - am I the only one who knows about the 7.1 beta? In
case
> I'm
> > > not
> > > > > > supposed to bring it up among my colleagues?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Perry
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Julie Prestopnik via RT <
> > > > > > met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Perry. My apologies for the delay in responding. I
was out
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > > office.
> > > > > > > I have copied over your script and would like to run it
to see
> > if I
> > > > can
> > > > > > > reproduce the error. I see the usage is:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > verf_gridtobs.sh $model $vday $vcyc
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can you please send me the exact command line you are
running
> so
> > > > that I
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > try to reproduce the error? Or, to simply things you
could send
> > me
> > > a
> > > > > > single
> > > > > > > command line for pb2nc and point_stat so that I can run
that.
> > The
> > > > > latter
> > > > > > > option would be preferable in case my environment isn't
set up
> as
> > > > yours
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > with all necessary items.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Julie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 2:28 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov
via
> RT <
> > > > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi there,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am trying out the new 7.1 beta, and I got this error
in
> both
> > > > pb2nc
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > point_stat (except for point_stat replace the 146 in
the
> error
> > > with
> > > > > > 80):
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > terminate called after throwing an instance of
> > > > > > > > 'netCDF::exceptions::NcBadId'
> > > > > > > > what(): NetCDF: Not a valid ID
> > > > > > > > file: ncVar.cpp line:146
> > > > > > > > /meso/save/Perry.Shafran/verif/nwtest/ush/verf_
> > > > > gridtobs_fits.sh[143]:
> > > > > > .:
> > > > > > > > line 217:
> > > > > > > > 41145: Abort(coredump)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Any idea what the issue is here?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Perry
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Perry Shafran - NOAA
> > Affiliate <
> > > > > > > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi, Julie,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Perry
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 2:50 PM, Julie Prestopnik
via RT <
> > > > > > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> Hi Perry.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> met-7.1_beta1 is now installed on tide. You can
access it
> > by
> > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> following:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> module use
/global/noscrub/Julie.Prestopnik/modulefiles
> > > > > > > > >> module load met/7.1_beta1
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Please let me know if you have any questions or
encounter
> > any
> > > > > > > problems.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >> Julie
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 3:41 PM, John Halley Gotway
<
> > > > > > johnhg at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > Perry and Julie,
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > I just created a met-7.1_beta1 release to enable
Perry
> to
> > do
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > testing
> > > > > > > > >> > he needs.
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > I posted the tarball to the MET website:
> > > > > > > > >> > www.dtcenter.org/met/users/
> > downloads/MET_releases/met-7.
> > > > > > > > >> > 1_beta1.20180316.tar.gz
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > Perry, I assume it'd be most convenient for you
to have
> > this
> > > > > > > available
> > > > > > > > >> on
> > > > > > > > >> > WCOSS for testing? If not, please let us know
where.
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > Julie, assuming Perry wants it on the dev side of
WCOSS,
> > can
> > > > you
> > > > > > > > please
> > > > > > > > >> > install it in your personal area, and tell Perry
how he
> > can
> > > > > access
> > > > > > > it?
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > Here's the very short list of changes included in
> > > > met-7.1_beta1
> > > > > > > (taken
> > > > > > > > >> > from the top-level README file):
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > Version 7.1 BETA 1 Release Notes:
> > > > > > > > >> > --------------------------------
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > - Make logic for finding matching UGRD/VGRD
verification
> > > tasks
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > >> robust
> > > > > > > > >> > in
> > > > > > > > >> > Point-Stat and Grid-Stat.
> > > > > > > > >> > - Fix PB2NC's computation of valid time for
AIRNOW
> > > > observations.
> > > > > > > > >> > - Minor bugfix for Series-Analysis when computing
> min/max
> > > > timing
> > > > > > > info
> > > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > >> > series with some missing input files.
> > > > > > > > >> > - Enable vld_thresh = 0 in Ensemble-Stat and
> > > Series-Analysis.
> > > > > > > > >> > - Update pntnc2ascii.R Rscript to handle obs_var
> variable.
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >> > John
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 6:46 AM,
perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > via
> > > > RT
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> Hi, John,
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> At this point my main concern is the ability to
run MET
> > and
> > > > get
> > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > >> MET
> > > > > > > > >> >> output on some of the air quality items. Then
once
> > that's
> > > > > done,
> > > > > > > > worry
> > > > > > > > >> >> later about METViewer concerns. I do think
we'll want
> to
> > > > > > > eventually
> > > > > > > > >> >> compare VSDB vs MET output using METViewer, but
that
> > seems
> > > to
> > > > > be
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > down
> > > > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > >> >> road issue (though not too far down the road, so
if
> there
> > > is
> > > > a
> > > > > > > > >> METViewer
> > > > > > > > >> >> update coming up, put this in it).
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> Thanks!
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> Perry
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 5:31 PM, John Halley
Gotway via
> > RT
> > > <
> > > > > > > > >> >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > Perry,
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > On Monday, we decided that I should do the
first (and
> > > very
> > > > > > early)
> > > > > > > > >> beta
> > > > > > > > >> >> > release of met-7.1 to get this feature to you
for
> > > testing.
> > > > > But
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > >> >> > version really shouldn't be used for anything
other
> > than
> > > > > > testing.
> > > > > > > > >> Since
> > > > > > > > >> >> > this is a beta version for 7.1, my inclination
would
> be
> > > to
> > > > > > > > increment
> > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > version number of the output now... to 7.1.
The only
> > > > > downside
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> that
> > > > > > > > >> >> it
> > > > > > > > >> >> > won't be possible to load 7.1 output in
METViewer.
> The
> > > > > loader
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > >> >> error
> > > > > > > > >> >> > out and say that it doesn't know anything
about
> version
> > > > 7.1.
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > If you need to be able to load this output
into
> > > METViewer,
> > > > we
> > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > >> >> keep
> > > > > > > > >> >> > the version number back at 7.0... but I'm
really
> > worried
> > > > > about
> > > > > > > > >> >> version-itis
> > > > > > > > >> >> > here. I don't want to create a confusing mess
of
> > output.
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > Any thoughts?
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > John
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:57 AM,
> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > via
> > > > > > RT
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > >> >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Tic
> > > > > > ket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > Hi, John,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > I'm not sure I caught whether you have
something
> for
> > me
> > > > to
> > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > >> >> not.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > I
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > think you were asking how to deliver these
updates
> > for
> > > > > ozone
> > > > > > > so I
> > > > > > > > >> >> guess
> > > > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > need to deliver first before I can test
anything.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > Perry
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Perry
Shafran -
> NOAA
> > > > > > Affiliate
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > Hi, John,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > Super, thanks! Let me know if there are
any
> > aspects
> > > of
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> need
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > clarification.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > Perry
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:48 PM, John
Halley
> Gotway
> > > via
> > > > > RT <
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> Perry,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> Yes, I received it. Thanks for the info.
I
> wrote
> > > up
> > > > a
> > > > > > > > >> development
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > ticket
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> in JiRA to handle this and Howard Soh is
taking
> a
> > > look
> > > > > at
> > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > >> I'll
> > > > > > > > >> >> > let
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> you
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> know when we have an update for you.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> John
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:31 PM,
> > > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > via
> > > > > > > > RT <
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > > > > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Hi, John,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > I was just wondering if you got this
message
> > > > regarding
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> DHR in
> > > > > > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> ozone
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > airnow file. I hadn't received any
> > > acknowledgement
> > > > of
> > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > >> >> think
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> that if
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > we are going to read this data
correctly for
> > > > > > verification,
> > > > > > > > >> we'll
> > > > > > > > >> >> > have
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> to be
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > aware of this and use the DHR to add
DHR to
> the
> > > > file's
> > > > > > > > >> timestamp
> > > > > > > > >> >> in
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> order
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > to get the right ob at the right time.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Perry
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Perry
> Shafran -
> > > > NOAA
> > > > > > > > >> Affiliate <
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > Hi, John,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > For ozone (and for PM likely as
well), the
> DHR
> > > > will
> > > > > > tell
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > time
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> of
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > the observation. The DHR ranges from
-11 to
> > 12
> > > in
> > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > >> file,
> > > > > > > > >> >> so
> > > > > > > > >> >> > if
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> you
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > have an observation with DHR of -10,
for
> > > example,
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> >> > observations
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > is
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > valid at 02Z. I guess I should have
done
> > better
> > > > to
> > > > > > note
> > > > > > > > >> this
> > > > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > previously, but you will need this
> additional
> > > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > >> >> order
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> get
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > the valid time of the observation.
My
> > apologies
> > > > for
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > >> >> realizing
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> this
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > sooner (like before 7.0 was
released).
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > The 00Z valid time (as in your
example), I
> > just
> > > > > > > realized,
> > > > > > > > >> is a
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > special
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > case. Since the DHR ranges from -11
to 12,
> > that
> > > > > means
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > valid
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > times
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > in the file range from 01Z to 00Z the
next
> > day.
> > > > > > That's
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> >> reason
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > for
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > this
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > - it is indeed the 2017080912
> > <(201)%20708-0912>
> > > > > > <(201)%20708-0912>
> > > > > > > > >> <(201)%20708-0912>
> > > > > > > > >> >> <(201)%20708-0912> file but this
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> particular
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > valid time is 2017081000
<(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > > > >> >> <(201)%20708-1000> because DHR is 12 in
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > this
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > case. So that makes it extra special
fun
> for
> > > > > > verifying
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > 00Z
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> valid
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > time, since we will have to go to the
> previous
> > > > day's
> > > > > > obs
> > > > > > > > >> file
> > > > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> verify
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > that. Every other hour of the day,
you
> won't
> > > see
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > >> >> mismatch.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > Perry
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:59 AM, John
Halley
> > > > Gotway
> > > > > > via
> > > > > > > > RT <
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> Perry,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> Yes, I see that all the AWIP* GRIB2
files
> you
> > > > sent
> > > > > me
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > >> >> valid
> > > > > > > > >> >> > at
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> 2017081000.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> However, the point observations in
the
> > prepda.
> > > > > > > 2017081000
> > > > > > > > >> are
> > > > > > > > >> >> > valid
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> at
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> 20170809_120000. Or at least that's
what
> the
> > > > > output
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> PB2NC
> > > > > > > > >> >> > tells
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> me!
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> The timestamps of the data contained
in
> > prepda.
> > > > > > > > 2017081000
> > > > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> 12-hours
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> earlier than the timestamp of that
file
> > > > indicates.
> > > > > > > > Here's
> > > > > > > > >> a
> > > > > > > > >> >> log
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> message
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> from PB2NC listing out the "center
time"
> for
> > > that
> > > > > > file:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> DEBUG 1: Processing Bufr File:
prepda.
> > > > > 2017081000
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> DEBUG 2: Bufr Time Center:
> > > > 20170809_120000
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> Perhaps there's a problem in the
naming
> > > > convention
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > "prepda"
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> file... or perhaps there's a good
reason
> for
> > > the
> > > > > > > 12-hour
> > > > > > > > >> >> > offset...
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > or
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> perhaps there's some problem in the
MET
> code
> > > and
> > > > > > we're
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > >> >> > reading
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> data
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> from that file correctly?
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> John
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:37 AM,
> > > > > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > > > via
> > > > > > > > >> >> RT <
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Tic
> > > > > > > > >> >> ket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > OK, thanks! So this is included
in the
> > > latest
> > > > > MET
> > > > > > > > >> release.
> > > > > > > > >> >> I
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > think
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> there
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > will definitely be other
questions, if I
> > want
> > > > to
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > verify
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > each
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > hourly forecast of ozone with the
> > > observation.
> > > > > The
> > > > > > > DHR
> > > > > > > > >> >> tells
> > > > > > > > >> >> > us
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> which
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> hour
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > that we are looking for to verify.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > Perry
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:25 AM,
John
> > Halley
> > > > > Gotway
> > > > > > > via
> > > > > > > > >> RT <
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > Hi Perry,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > We just posted the met-7.0
release
> > > yesterday.
> > > > > > > Julie
> > > > > > > > >> >> > Prestopnik
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> is
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > actually
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > out at NCEP today, and she'll be
the
> one
> > to
> > > > > > install
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> on
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> WCOSS. So
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> I'll
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > let her chime in to let us know
when
> > she's
> > > > able
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > >> >> that.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > John
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:27 AM,
> > > > > > > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > > > >> >> via
> > > > > > > > >> >> > RT
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > <
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > I am able to start working on
this
> > today.
> > > > Is
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > >> >> > available
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> for
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > testing
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > now?
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Also I'm not entirely sure
what you
> > mean
> > > in
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> obs
> > > > > > > > >> >> > and
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> model
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > don't match up well in time?
In the
> > > > example
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > sent
> > > > > > > > >> you,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> have
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > a
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> set
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > of
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > observations and all the
forecast
> files
> > > > that
> > > > > > > verify
> > > > > > > > >> at
> > > > > > > > >> >> that
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> particular
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > time. Both the model and
observed
> bufr
> > > > file
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > >> >> 1-hourly
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> fields
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > (hourly
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > fields of 1-hr and hourly
fields of
> > 8-hr
> > > > > ozone
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > >> kind of
> > > > > > > > >> >> > hard
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> to
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > imagine
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > that, but they are just
values). So
> we
> > > > will
> > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > >> need a
> > > > > > > > >> >> > way
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> match
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > up
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > the observed field with the
modeled
> > field
> > > > at
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > corresponding
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > time.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > (For
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > example, matching the 3-hr
forecast
> > from
> > > > the
> > > > > > 12Z
> > > > > > > > >> model
> > > > > > > > >> >> run
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > with
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> 15Z
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > observed field.)
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > I think this is best achieved
with a
> > > > > different
> > > > > > > > >> >> execution of
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> point_stat
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > for
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > each individual hour, because
that's
> > how
> > > I
> > > > do
> > > > > > > > >> gridtobs
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > anyway.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > What are your thoughts on the
above?
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Perry
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:32
PM, John
> > > Halley
> > > > > > > Gotway
> > > > > > > > >> via
> > > > > > > > >> >> RT <
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Hi Perry,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Howard Soh updated the logic
in the
> > > PB2NC
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > >> >> the 1
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > and
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> 8-hour
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > COPO
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > observations in the way we
> discussed.
> > > I
> > > > > > wanted
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> let
> > > > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> know
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> that
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > I
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > tested it this afternoon and
got
> some
> > > > good
> > > > > > > > results.
> > > > > > > > >> >> The
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> sample
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > fcst/obs
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > data you sent doesn't line
up well
> in
> > > > time,
> > > > > > so
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > >> just
> > > > > > > > >> >> > set a
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> very
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > large
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > matching time window in
Point-Stat.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Here's the relevant pieces
of the
> > > > > Point-Stat
> > > > > > > > config
> > > > > > > > >> >> file:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > fcst = {
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > field = [
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "OZCON";
level =
> > "A01";
> > > },
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "OZCON";
level =
> > "A08";
> > > }
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > ];
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > }
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > obs = {
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > message_type = [
"AIRNOW" ];
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > convert(x) = x*10^9;
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > field = [
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level
=
> "A01";
> > > },
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "COPO"; level
=
> > "A08"; }
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > ];
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > }
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > And I'm just *guessing* at
that
> > > > conversion
> > > > > > > > factor.
> > > > > > > > >> >> The
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > resulting
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > numbers
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > look about right, but its up
to you
> > to
> > > > > > confirm.
> > > > > > > > >> Using
> > > > > > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > sample
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > data
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > you
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > sent me, this results in a
mean
> error
> > > > value
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> 12.64
> > > > > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> 15.48
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > for
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > 1
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > and 8-hour accums,
respectively.
> But
> > > the
> > > > > > > > fcst/obs
> > > > > > > > >> >> data
> > > > > > > > >> >> > are
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> actually
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > offset
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > by 12 hours so these numbers
don't
> > mean
> > > > > much,
> > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > >> >> than
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > demonstrating
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > there isn't a huge order of
> magnitude
> > > > > > > difference.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > John
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:06
PM,
> John
> > > > > Halley
> > > > > > > > >> Gotway <
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> johnhg at ucar.edu
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > Perry,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > I think I prefer option 2
as
> well.
> > > > I'll
> > > > > > ask
> > > > > > > > >> Howard
> > > > > > > > >> >> > Soh,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> one
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > of
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > developers here, to add
specific
> > > logic
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> >> AIRNOW
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> message
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> type,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > where...
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > - level = absolute
value of
> TPHR
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > - qc flag = QCIND
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > John
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at
2:00 PM,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> via
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > RT
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> <
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <URL:
> https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Hi, John,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> What would be easier in
> comparing
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > > model
> > > > > > > > >> >> output,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > do
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> you
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > think?
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > I
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> think that having it as
some
> sort
> > of
> > > > > > > > >> "accumulation
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> variable"
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> (the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > 2nd
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> option) would work.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> In the model, though,
they are
> not
> > > > > listed
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > >> >> either 1
> > > > > > > > >> >> > or
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> 8 hr
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> accumulations/averages.
They
> are
> > > > listed
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > >> either,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > for
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > example
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > for
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > 24
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> hr forecast, either "23-
24 hr
> ave
> > > > fcst"
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > > >> "16-24
> > > > > > > > >> >> hr
> > > > > > > > >> >> > ave
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > fcst".
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > Would
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> easier if it said "1 hr
ave
> fcst"
> > or
> > > > "8
> > > > > hr
> > > > > > > ave
> > > > > > > > >> >> fcst",
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > but
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> again,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > that's
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> not
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> what we got. So I'm
guessing
> that
> > > > might
> > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > >> it a
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > little
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > more
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > challenging
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> for the model to script
up?
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Perry
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at
3:50 PM,
> > > John
> > > > > > Halley
> > > > > > > > >> Gotway
> > > > > > > > >> >> > via
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> RT <
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Perry,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > I wanted to check how
point
> > > > > observations
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> >> precip
> > > > > > > > >> >> > are
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> stored in
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> PrepBUFR
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > so I ran PB2NC on an
old NDAS
> > file
> > > > > using
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> >> -index
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> option.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > Here's
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> what I
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > found:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP06:
TOTAL
> > > > > > PRECIPITATION
> > > > > > > > >> PAST 6
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > HOURS
> > > > types:
> > > > > > > ADPSFC
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP24:
TOTAL
> > > > > > PRECIPITATION
> > > > > > > > >> PAST 24
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > HOURS
> > > types:
> > > > > > > ADPSFC
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > So basically, the
accumulation
> > > > > interval
> > > > > > > > >> exists in
> > > > > > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > observation
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> variable
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > name. Following that
> paradigm,
> > if
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > AIRNOW
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> observations
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> were
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > stored
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > using COPO01 and
COPO08, then
> > MET
> > > > > would
> > > > > > > > >> already
> > > > > > > > >> >> be
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > able
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> to
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > handle
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > them
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > already. But I suppose
we're
> > > likely
> > > > > > stuck
> > > > > > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > >> >> what
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> we've
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> got.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > I can see 2 ways we
could
> handle
> > > > this
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> >> processing
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> AIRNOW
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > message
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > types...
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Option 1: Follow the
precip
> > > example
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > modify
> > > > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> observation
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > variable
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > names by appending the
TPHR
> > value.
> > > > > > > Instead
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> >> COPO,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> we'd
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> have
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> observations
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > named COPO01 and
COPO08. And
> if
> > > we
> > > > > ever
> > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > >> >> TPHR =
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > -24,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> that'd
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > produce
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> a
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > COPO24 variable name.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Option 2: We could keep
the
> COPO
> > > > > > variable
> > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> unchanged,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > and
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > instead
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> set
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the "level" value for
these
> > > > > observations
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> >> indicate
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > accumulation
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > interval. If you look
at the
> > > > ascii2nc
> > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > statement,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> you'll
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > see
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > following:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > "Level" is the
pressure
> level
> > > > (hPa)
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > >> >> > accumulation
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> interval
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> (HH[MMSS]).
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > So we could use the
value of
> > TPHR
> > > to
> > > > > > > define
> > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > level
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> as an
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> "accumulation"
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > interval.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Either option could be
made to
> > > work
> > > > in
> > > > > > > MET.
> > > > > > > > >> Does
> > > > > > > > >> >> > one
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> make
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> more
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > sense
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > you than the other?
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > While we're doing this,
I
> assume
> > > we
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > >> also
> > > > > > > > >> >> > using
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> QCIND
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > value
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > populate the obs_qty
(i.e.
> > quality
> > > > > > > control)
> > > > > > > > >> >> setting?
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > John
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at
1:34
> PM,
> > > > John
> > > > > > > Halley
> > > > > > > > >> >> Gotway
> > > > > > > > >> >> > <
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > johnhg at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Perry,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Until users dive into
the
> > > details,
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > won't
> > > > > > > > >> >> know
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > about
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> these
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > sorts
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> -1
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > vs -8 issues. But
once we
> > > > identify
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > requirements,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> we
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> can
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > update
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > software to handle
them.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > So please keep the
feedback
> > > > coming.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > John
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018
at 1:31
> > PM,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> via
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > RT
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > <
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu>
wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> <URL:
> > > > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Hi, John,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> OK, thanks! I
thought the
> > > latest
> > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > >> of
> > > > > > > > >> >> MET
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> that we
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> were
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > using
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> was
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> configured for the
air
> > quality
> > > > > > > > >> applications?
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Perry
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018
at
> 3:26
> > > PM,
> > > > > John
> > > > > > > > >> Halley
> > > > > > > > >> >> > Gotway
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> via
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> RT <
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu>
wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Perry,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > I just grabbed
them and
> ran
> > > the
> > > > > > > > forecast
> > > > > > > > >> >> data
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> through
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> plot_data_plane
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > utility. Looks
like
> > > specifying
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > >> >> as an
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > accumulation
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > type
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> does
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > trick:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_
> > > > > > > data_plane
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> AWIP3D18.tm00
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > OZCON_1hr.ps
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON";
> level="A1";'
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_
> > > > > > > data_plane
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> AWIP3D18.tm00
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > OZCON_8hr.ps
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON";
> level="A8";'
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > The resulting
images are
> > > > > attached.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Next, I ran pb2nc
using
> the
> > > > > -index
> > > > > > > > >> option to
> > > > > > > > >> >> > see
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > a
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > description
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > prepda contents:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/pb2nc
> > > > > > prepda.
> > > > > > > > >> >> 2017081000 <(201)%20708-1000> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
prepda.2017081000.nc
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > /usr/local/met-6.1/share/met/
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> config/PB2NCConfig_default
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > -index -log
> pb2nc_index.log
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1: Header
> > variables:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
SID:
> > STATION
> > > > > > > > >> IDENTIFICATION
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
XOB:
> > > LONGITUDE
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
YOB:
> > > LATITUDE
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
DHR:
> > > > OBSERVATION
> > > > > > > TIME
> > > > > > > > >> MINUS
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > CYCLE
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > TIME
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
ELV:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
TYP:
> > > PREPBUFR
> > > > > > REPORT
> > > > > > > > >> TYPE
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
T29:
> DATA
> > > DUMP
> > > > > > > REPORT
> > > > > > > > >> TYPE
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
ITP:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
Observation
> > > > > variables:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
COPO:
> > > > > CONCENTRATION
> > > > > > > OF
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > POLLUTANT
> > > > > > > > >> >> types:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> AIRNOW
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
TYPO:
> TYPE
> > OF
> > > > > > > POLLUTANT
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
CAT:
> > > PREPBUFR
> > > > > DATA
> > > > > > > > LEVEL
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > CATEGORY
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
PROCN:
> > PROCESS
> > > > > > NUMBER
> > > > > > > > FOR
> > > > > > > > >> >> THIS
> > > > > > > > >> >> > MPI
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> RUN
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > (OBTAINED
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> FROM
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > SCRIPT)
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
SQN:
> > REPORT
> > > > > > SEQUENCE
> > > > > > > > >> NUMBER
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
QCIND:
> > QUALITY
> > > > > > CONTROL
> > > > > > > > >> >> > INDICATION
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > OF
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > FOLLOWING
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DATA
types:
> > > AIRNOW
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
TSIG:
> TIME
> > > > > > > SIGNIFICANCE
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
RPT:
> > > REPORTED
> > > > > > > > >> OBSERVATION
> > > > > > > > >> >> TIME
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
TPHR:
> TIME
> > > > PERIOD
> > > > > > OR
> > > > > > > > >> >> > DISPLACEMENT
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > I see the COPO and
TPHR
> > > > > > observations
> > > > > > > > >> listed.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > We'll
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> need to
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > update
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > PB2NC code to
handle the
> > > logic
> > > > > > you've
> > > > > > > > >> >> > described.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > One option for
specifying
> > > the 1
> > > > > vs
> > > > > > 8
> > > > > > > > hour
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> difference
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> would
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > be
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> mimic
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> how
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > different precip
> > accumulation
> > > > > > > intervals
> > > > > > > > >> are
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > stored
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> for
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > gauges.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> I'll
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> look
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > more into how we
might do
> > > that.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > John
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 22,
2018 at
> > 12:17
> > > > PM,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > via
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > RT
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > <URL:
> > > > > > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Hi, John,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > I was just
wondering if
> > you
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > > found
> > > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> received
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> these
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > files.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Perry
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > On Wed, Feb 21,
2018 at
> > > 10:30
> > > > > AM,
> > > > > > > > Perry
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > Shafran -
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > NOAA
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Affiliate
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > I just
transferred
> some
> > > > model
> > > > > > > files
> > > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > >> >> an
> > > > > > > > >> >> > ob
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> file
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> here
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > on
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Theia.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> All
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > these model
files
> > verify
> > > at
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > ob
> > > > > > > > >> time
> > > > > > > > >> >> > here.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Have
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> a
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > look:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > /scratch4/NCEPDEV/meso/save/
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Perry.Shafran/for_john
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Perry
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > On Tue, Feb
20, 2018
> at
> > > > 6:55
> > > > > > PM,
> > > > > > > > John
> > > > > > > > >> >> > Halley
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Gotway
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> via
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > RT
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > <
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Hi Perry,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Can you
please point
> > me
> > > > to a
> > > > > > > model
> > > > > > > > >> >> output
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > file
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > containing
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > OZCON
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> fields?
Presumably,
> > > these
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > >> GRIB1
> > > > > > > > >> >> > or 2
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> format,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > and
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > hopefully,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> there's
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> some flag in
the
> > header
> > > > that
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > >> >> enable
> > > > > > > > >> >> > us
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > distinguish
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > between
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> GRIB
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> records
containing 1
> > > and 8
> > > > > > hour
> > > > > > > > >> >> averages.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> As for the
point
> > > > > > observations, I
> > > > > > > > >> >> suspect
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > that
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > we'll
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > need
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> add
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> logic
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > to
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> PB2NC to
distinguish
> > > > between
> > > > > > > the 1
> > > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > >> >> 8
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > hour
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > COPO
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > concentrations.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Perhaps
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> we could
update
> PB2NC
> > to
> > > > use
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> TPHR
> > > > > > > > >> >> > values
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> to
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > renamed
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > COPO
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> COPO_1
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > and
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> COPO_8?
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Are these
COPO point
> > > > > > > observations
> > > > > > > > >> >> present
> > > > > > > > >> >> > in
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> NDAS
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> or
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > GDAS
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > PrepBUFR
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > files?
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> John
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> On Tue, Feb
20, 2018
> > at
> > > > 1:40
> > > > > > PM,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > via
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> RT <
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Tue Feb 20
> 13:40:01
> > > > 2018:
> > > > > > > > Request
> > > > > > > > >> >> 84134
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > was
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > acted
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > upon.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
Transaction:
> Ticket
> > > > > created
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
Queue:
> > met_help
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
Subject:
> > > verifying
> > > > > > ozone
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
Owner:
> Nobody
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
Requestors:
> > > > > > > > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
Status: new
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Ticket
<URL:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Hi,
everyone,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I am
helping the
> AQM
> > > > group
> > > > > > > > verify
> > > > > > > > >> >> ozone
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > and
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> I
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> need
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > some
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> assistance
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > in
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> using
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > PB2NC (and
then
> > later
> > > > > > > > point_stat,
> > > > > > > > >> but
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > let's
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > start
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > with
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > PB2NC). I
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > need
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> to
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > be able to
read in
> > two
> > > > > > > > quantities
> > > > > > > > >> >> from
> > > > > > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> prepbufr
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > file
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > then
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> combine
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > that to be
able to
> > > > compare
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> two
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > model
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> items.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the bufr
file,
> > the
> > > > > > > variables
> > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > >> >> hand
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > are
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > COPO
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > (the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > ozone
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
concentration),
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > and also
TPHR.
> TPHR
> > > is
> > > > > > either
> > > > > > > > -1
> > > > > > > > >> or
> > > > > > > > >> >> -8
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> depending on
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > whether
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> observed
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > ozone is a
1-hr or
> > > 8-hr
> > > > > > > average.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In essence,
we
> have
> > > two
> > > > > > > entities
> > > > > > > > >> here
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> depending
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> on
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> value of
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > TPHR:
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > 1-hr
average ozone
> > and
> > > > the
> > > > > > > 8-hr
> > > > > > > > >> >> average
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> ozone.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> But
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > they
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> have
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > same
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > value.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the
model we
> also
> > > > have
> > > > > > two
> > > > > > > > >> >> variables.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> Both
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> are
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > called
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > OZCON,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> but
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > first one
in the
> > file
> > > > is a
> > > > > > > 1-hr
> > > > > > > > >> >> average
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > and
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > second
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > one
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> is
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 8-hr
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > The trick
here is
> > > > > verifying
> > > > > > > 1-hr
> > > > > > > > >> >> average
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> with
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> 1-hr
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > average,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> 8-hr
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average
with 8-hr
> > > > average.
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > >> think
> > > > > > > > >> >> > there
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> is a
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> multiplication
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> factor
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > in
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > there
somewhere,
> as
> > > the
> > > > > obs
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > >> >> units
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > of
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > mole/mole,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > while
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > model
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> is
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > in parts
per
> billion
> > > > > (ppb).
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I don't
know if
> > you've
> > > > > > spoken
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > >> >> > AQM
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> team
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> on
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > how
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> exactly
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> to do
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> this,
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > but I was
hoping
> to
> > > help
> > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > >> >> this.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > If
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > you
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> can
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > advise
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> on
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> how
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > to
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > do
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > this, that
would
> be
> > > > great!
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Perry
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: verifying ozone
From: Julie Prestopnik
Time: Thu Mar 29 10:07:49 2018
Hi Perry.
I have installed met-7.1_beta2 on tide. You can access it by running:
module use /global/noscrub/Julie.Prestopnik/modulefiles/
module load met/7.1_beta2
Please let us know if you encounter any problems with running this
version. Thanks for all of your help in finding issues!
Julie
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 6:37 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
>
> Hi, John,
>
> Also - in terms of valid time - you NEED to add the value of DHR to
the 12Z
> time to get the actual valid time of that particular observation.
If you
> can add that to your pb2nc processing, that would probably be what
we'd
> need to do.
>
> We can certainly pick this up next week.
>
> Perry
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 5:08 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> > Perry,
> >
> > This is great. Thanks for sending the sample data. I pulled it
over and
> > ran both an ANOWPM (aqm.t12z.anowpm.pb.tm00) and AIRNOW
> > (aqm.t12z.prepbufr.tm00) file through PB2NC. Adding ANOWPM was
> literally a
> > 1-line change in PB2NC.
> >
> > Next, I ran pb2nc on two sample files, as shown below (I attached
the
> > config file I used, but I'm just requesting "COPO" and "COPOPM"):
> >
> > pb2nc \
> > ./airnow/hourly.20180325/aqm.t12z.anowpm.pb.tm00 \
> > ./airnow/hourly.20180325/aqm.t12z.anowpm.pb.tm00.nc \
> > PB2NCConfig -log run_pb2nc.log
> >
> > pb2nc \
> > airnow/hourly.20180325/aqm.t12z.prepbufr.tm00 \
> > airnow/hourly.20180325/aqm.t12z.prepbufr.tm00.nc \
> > PB2NCConfig -log run_pb2nc.log
> >
> > Next, I dumped the resulting NetCDF files to ascii like this:
> >
> > Rscript met/scripts/Rscripts/pntnc2ascii.R airnow/hourly.20180325/
> > aqm.t12z.prepbufr.tm00.nc > aqm.t12z.prepbufr.tm00.txt
> > Rscriptmet/scripts/Rscripts/pntnc2ascii.R
./airnow/hourly.20180325/
> > aqm.t12z.anowpm.pb.tm00.nc > aqm.t12z.anowpm.pb.tm00.txt
> >
> > And I've attached the resulting text files.
> >
> > I *think* they look good but thought you should take a look at the
data
> to
> > be sure. Note that the 8th column is the "accumulation interval"
or in
> our
> > case, averaging interval, in seconds. So 3600 means 1 hour and
28800
> means
> > 8 hours.
> >
> > Please look at the 3rd column, which is the valid time in
YYYYMMDD_HHMMSS
> > format. Notice that the valid time remains constant for all these
> > observations. Is that correct? Is that what you'd expect?
> >
> > I'm going to be out of the office Thurs/Fri during my kid's spring
break.
> >
> > I don't want to slow you down, so I think now is a good time to do
the
> > met-7.1_beta2 release.
> >
> > That way Julie can install it on WCOSS while she's patching met-
7.0.
> >
> > So I'll do that this afternoon before heading out of the office.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > John
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 1:51 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> > >
> > > Hi, John,
> > >
> > > Super, thanks!
> > >
> > > Perry
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 3:50 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Perry,
> > > >
> > > > Yep, the bug was introduced in met-7.0... and stuck around for
> > > > met-7.1_beta1. Howard added a fix to both the met trunk and
the
> > > > met-7.0_bugfix branch... and I posted the fixes to the MET
website:
> > > > https://dtcenter.org/met/users/support/known_issues/
> > METv7.0/index.php
> > > >
> > > > Julie is back in the office tomorrow and will patch the 7.0
build and
> > > > compile met-7.1_beta2 once I have it ready.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 12:22 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via
RT <
> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi, Julie,
> > > > >
> > > > > Just an FYI - I just ran the 7.0 version of MET and it also
failed
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > same error, interestingly. But others did not report a
problem
> like
> > > this
> > > > > in 7.0? Weird.
> > > > >
> > > > > Perry
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Julie Prestopnik via RT <
> > > > > met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Perry.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I can reproduce the problem on both tide and our local
machine.
> It
> > > > looks
> > > > > > like an issue with the logic in when writing to the NetCDF
output
> > > file.
> > > > > > One of our software developers in working on the problem.
We
> will
> > > let
> > > > > you
> > > > > > know when it is resolved.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I will be out of the office this coming Monday -
Wednesday, just
> > FYI,
> > > > so
> > > > > I
> > > > > > may not be able to recompile on tide until next week.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regarding your question about the 7.1 beta, I think you
are
> > probably
> > > > the
> > > > > > only one who knows about the 7.1 beta, but I don't think
it would
> > be
> > > a
> > > > > > problem if you mentioned it to your colleagues.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Julie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:20 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov
via RT
> <
> > > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi, Julie,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yikes, it's all part a script, and it's not quite the
usage.
> But
> > > > here
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > the commands used from the output:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > pb2nc prepda.2018032200 prepda.nc.2018032200
> > > > > > > /meso/save/Perry.Shafran/verif/nwtest/parm/PB2NCConfig
-v
> > > > > > > 3
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > point_stat AWIP3D00.tm00 prepda.nc.2018032200
> > > > > > >
/meso/save/Perry.Shafran/verif/nwtest/parm/PointStatConfig_cv
> > -v 3
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You can run these if you go to the directory
> > > > > > > /stmpp2/Perry.Shafran/tmpnwtest/verf_gridtobs_nam_00/00.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > BTW - am I the only one who knows about the 7.1 beta?
In case
> > I'm
> > > > not
> > > > > > > supposed to bring it up among my colleagues?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Perry
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Julie Prestopnik via RT
<
> > > > > > > met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Perry. My apologies for the delay in responding.
I was
> out
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > office.
> > > > > > > > I have copied over your script and would like to run
it to
> see
> > > if I
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > > reproduce the error. I see the usage is:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > verf_gridtobs.sh $model $vday $vcyc
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Can you please send me the exact command line you are
running
> > so
> > > > > that I
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > try to reproduce the error? Or, to simply things you
could
> send
> > > me
> > > > a
> > > > > > > single
> > > > > > > > command line for pb2nc and point_stat so that I can
run that.
> > > The
> > > > > > latter
> > > > > > > > option would be preferable in case my environment
isn't set
> up
> > as
> > > > > yours
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > with all necessary items.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Julie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 2:28 PM,
perry.shafran at noaa.gov via
> > RT <
> > > > > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi there,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I am trying out the new 7.1 beta, and I got this
error in
> > both
> > > > > pb2nc
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > point_stat (except for point_stat replace the 146 in
the
> > error
> > > > with
> > > > > > > 80):
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > terminate called after throwing an instance of
> > > > > > > > > 'netCDF::exceptions::NcBadId'
> > > > > > > > > what(): NetCDF: Not a valid ID
> > > > > > > > > file: ncVar.cpp line:146
> > > > > > > > > /meso/save/Perry.Shafran/verif/nwtest/ush/verf_
> > > > > > gridtobs_fits.sh[143]:
> > > > > > > .:
> > > > > > > > > line 217:
> > > > > > > > > 41145: Abort(coredump)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Any idea what the issue is here?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Perry
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Perry Shafran -
NOAA
> > > Affiliate <
> > > > > > > > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi, Julie,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Perry
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 2:50 PM, Julie Prestopnik
via RT
> <
> > > > > > > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> Hi Perry.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> met-7.1_beta1 is now installed on tide. You can
access
> it
> > > by
> > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> following:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> module use /global/noscrub/Julie.
> Prestopnik/modulefiles
> > > > > > > > > >> module load met/7.1_beta1
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Please let me know if you have any questions or
> encounter
> > > any
> > > > > > > > problems.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > >> Julie
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 3:41 PM, John Halley
Gotway <
> > > > > > > johnhg at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > Perry and Julie,
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > I just created a met-7.1_beta1 release to
enable Perry
> > to
> > > do
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > testing
> > > > > > > > > >> > he needs.
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > I posted the tarball to the MET website:
> > > > > > > > > >> > www.dtcenter.org/met/users/
> > > downloads/MET_releases/met-7.
> > > > > > > > > >> > 1_beta1.20180316.tar.gz
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > Perry, I assume it'd be most convenient for you
to
> have
> > > this
> > > > > > > > available
> > > > > > > > > >> on
> > > > > > > > > >> > WCOSS for testing? If not, please let us know
where.
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > Julie, assuming Perry wants it on the dev side
of
> WCOSS,
> > > can
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > please
> > > > > > > > > >> > install it in your personal area, and tell
Perry how
> he
> > > can
> > > > > > access
> > > > > > > > it?
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > Here's the very short list of changes included
in
> > > > > met-7.1_beta1
> > > > > > > > (taken
> > > > > > > > > >> > from the top-level README file):
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > Version 7.1 BETA 1 Release Notes:
> > > > > > > > > >> > --------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > - Make logic for finding matching UGRD/VGRD
> verification
> > > > tasks
> > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > >> robust
> > > > > > > > > >> > in
> > > > > > > > > >> > Point-Stat and Grid-Stat.
> > > > > > > > > >> > - Fix PB2NC's computation of valid time for
AIRNOW
> > > > > observations.
> > > > > > > > > >> > - Minor bugfix for Series-Analysis when
computing
> > min/max
> > > > > timing
> > > > > > > > info
> > > > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > >> > series with some missing input files.
> > > > > > > > > >> > - Enable vld_thresh = 0 in Ensemble-Stat and
> > > > Series-Analysis.
> > > > > > > > > >> > - Update pntnc2ascii.R Rscript to handle
obs_var
> > variable.
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > >> > John
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 6:46 AM,
> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > via
> > > > > RT
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> Hi, John,
> > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> At this point my main concern is the ability
to run
> MET
> > > and
> > > > > get
> > > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > >> MET
> > > > > > > > > >> >> output on some of the air quality items. Then
once
> > > that's
> > > > > > done,
> > > > > > > > > worry
> > > > > > > > > >> >> later about METViewer concerns. I do think
we'll
> want
> > to
> > > > > > > > eventually
> > > > > > > > > >> >> compare VSDB vs MET output using METViewer,
but that
> > > seems
> > > > to
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > down
> > > > > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> road issue (though not too far down the road,
so if
> > there
> > > > is
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > >> METViewer
> > > > > > > > > >> >> update coming up, put this in it).
> > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> Perry
> > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 5:31 PM, John Halley
Gotway
> via
> > > RT
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > >> >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > Perry,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > On Monday, we decided that I should do the
first
> (and
> > > > very
> > > > > > > early)
> > > > > > > > > >> beta
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > release of met-7.1 to get this feature to
you for
> > > > testing.
> > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > version really shouldn't be used for
anything other
> > > than
> > > > > > > testing.
> > > > > > > > > >> Since
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > this is a beta version for 7.1, my
inclination
> would
> > be
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > increment
> > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > version number of the output now... to 7.1.
The
> only
> > > > > > downside
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > >> that
> > > > > > > > > >> >> it
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > won't be possible to load 7.1 output in
METViewer.
> > The
> > > > > > loader
> > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > >> >> error
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > out and say that it doesn't know anything
about
> > version
> > > > > 7.1.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > If you need to be able to load this output
into
> > > > METViewer,
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > >> >> keep
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > the version number back at 7.0... but I'm
really
> > > worried
> > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > >> >> version-itis
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > here. I don't want to create a confusing
mess of
> > > output.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > Any thoughts?
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > John
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:57 AM,
> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > via
> > > > > > > RT
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Tic
> > > > > > > ket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > Hi, John,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > I'm not sure I caught whether you have
something
> > for
> > > me
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > >> >> not.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > I
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > think you were asking how to deliver these
> updates
> > > for
> > > > > > ozone
> > > > > > > > so I
> > > > > > > > > >> >> guess
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > need to deliver first before I can test
anything.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > Perry
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Perry
Shafran -
> > NOAA
> > > > > > > Affiliate
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > Hi, John,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > Super, thanks! Let me know if there are
any
> > > aspects
> > > > of
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > >> need
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > clarification.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > Perry
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:48 PM, John
Halley
> > Gotway
> > > > via
> > > > > > RT <
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> Perry,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> Yes, I received it. Thanks for the
info. I
> > wrote
> > > > up
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > >> development
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > ticket
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> in JiRA to handle this and Howard Soh
is
> taking
> > a
> > > > look
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > >> I'll
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > let
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> you
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> know when we have an update for you.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> John
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:31 PM,
> > > > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > > via
> > > > > > > > > RT <
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > > > > > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Hi, John,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > I was just wondering if you got this
message
> > > > > regarding
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> DHR in
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> ozone
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > airnow file. I hadn't received any
> > > > acknowledgement
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > >> >> think
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> that if
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > we are going to read this data
correctly for
> > > > > > > verification,
> > > > > > > > > >> we'll
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > have
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> to be
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > aware of this and use the DHR to add
DHR to
> > the
> > > > > file's
> > > > > > > > > >> timestamp
> > > > > > > > > >> >> in
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> order
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > to get the right ob at the right
time.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Perry
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 12:07 PM,
Perry
> > Shafran -
> > > > > NOAA
> > > > > > > > > >> Affiliate <
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > Hi, John,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > For ozone (and for PM likely as
well), the
> > DHR
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > tell
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > time
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> of
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > the observation. The DHR ranges
from -11
> to
> > > 12
> > > > in
> > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > >> file,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> so
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > if
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> you
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > have an observation with DHR of
-10, for
> > > > example,
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > observations
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > is
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > valid at 02Z. I guess I should
have done
> > > better
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > note
> > > > > > > > > >> this
> > > > > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > previously, but you will need this
> > additional
> > > > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > >> >> order
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> get
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > the valid time of the observation.
My
> > > apologies
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > >> >> realizing
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> this
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > sooner (like before 7.0 was
released).
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > The 00Z valid time (as in your
example), I
> > > just
> > > > > > > > realized,
> > > > > > > > > >> is a
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > special
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > case. Since the DHR ranges from
-11 to
> 12,
> > > that
> > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > valid
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > times
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > in the file range from 01Z to 00Z
the next
> > > day.
> > > > > > > That's
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> reason
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > for
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > this
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > - it is indeed the 2017080912
> > > <(201)%20708-0912>
> > > > > > > <(201)%20708-0912>
> > > > > > > > > >> <(201)%20708-0912>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> <(201)%20708-0912> file but this
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> particular
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > valid time is 2017081000
> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > > <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > > > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> <(201)%20708-1000> because DHR is 12 in
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > this
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > case. So that makes it extra
special fun
> > for
> > > > > > > verifying
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > 00Z
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> valid
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > time, since we will have to go to
the
> > previous
> > > > > day's
> > > > > > > obs
> > > > > > > > > >> file
> > > > > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> verify
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > that. Every other hour of the day,
you
> > won't
> > > > see
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > >> >> mismatch.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > Perry
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:59 AM,
John
> Halley
> > > > > Gotway
> > > > > > > via
> > > > > > > > > RT <
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> Perry,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> Yes, I see that all the AWIP*
GRIB2 files
> > you
> > > > > sent
> > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > >> >> valid
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > at
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> 2017081000.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> However, the point observations in
the
> > > prepda.
> > > > > > > > 2017081000
> > > > > > > > > >> are
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > valid
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> at
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> 20170809_120000. Or at least
that's what
> > the
> > > > > > output
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >> PB2NC
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > tells
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> me!
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> The timestamps of the data
contained in
> > > prepda.
> > > > > > > > > 2017081000
> > > > > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> 12-hours
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> earlier than the timestamp of that
file
> > > > > indicates.
> > > > > > > > > Here's
> > > > > > > > > >> a
> > > > > > > > > >> >> log
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> message
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> from PB2NC listing out the "center
time"
> > for
> > > > that
> > > > > > > file:
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> DEBUG 1: Processing Bufr File:
> prepda.
> > > > > > 2017081000
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> DEBUG 2: Bufr Time Center:
> > > > > 20170809_120000
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> Perhaps there's a problem in the
naming
> > > > > convention
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > "prepda"
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> file... or perhaps there's a good
reason
> > for
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > 12-hour
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > offset...
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > or
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> perhaps there's some problem in
the MET
> > code
> > > > and
> > > > > > > we're
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > reading
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> data
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> from that file correctly?
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> John
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:37 AM,
> > > > > > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > > > > via
> > > > > > > > > >> >> RT <
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Tic
> > > > > > > > > >> >> ket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > OK, thanks! So this is included
in the
> > > > latest
> > > > > > MET
> > > > > > > > > >> release.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> I
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > think
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> there
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > will definitely be other
questions, if
> I
> > > want
> > > > > to
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > verify
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > each
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > hourly forecast of ozone with
the
> > > > observation.
> > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > DHR
> > > > > > > > > >> >> tells
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > us
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> which
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> hour
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > that we are looking for to
verify.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > Perry
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:25 AM,
John
> > > Halley
> > > > > > Gotway
> > > > > > > > via
> > > > > > > > > >> RT <
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > Hi Perry,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > We just posted the met-7.0
release
> > > > yesterday.
> > > > > > > > Julie
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > Prestopnik
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> is
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > actually
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > out at NCEP today, and she'll
be the
> > one
> > > to
> > > > > > > install
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > >> on
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> WCOSS. So
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> I'll
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > let her chime in to let us
know when
> > > she's
> > > > > able
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > >> >> that.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > John
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:27
AM,
> > > > > > > > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > > > > >> >> via
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > RT
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > <
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > I am able to start working
on this
> > > today.
> > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > available
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > testing
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > now?
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Also I'm not entirely sure
what you
> > > mean
> > > > in
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> obs
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > and
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> model
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > don't match up well in time?
In
> the
> > > > > example
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > sent
> > > > > > > > > >> you,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> have
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > a
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> set
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > of
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > observations and all the
forecast
> > files
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > verify
> > > > > > > > > >> at
> > > > > > > > > >> >> that
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> particular
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > time. Both the model and
observed
> > bufr
> > > > > file
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > >> >> 1-hourly
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> fields
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > (hourly
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > fields of 1-hr and hourly
fields of
> > > 8-hr
> > > > > > ozone
> > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > >> kind of
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > hard
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> to
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > imagine
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > that, but they are just
values).
> So
> > we
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > >> need a
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > way
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> match
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > up
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > the observed field with the
modeled
> > > field
> > > > > at
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > corresponding
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > time.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > (For
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > example, matching the 3-hr
forecast
> > > from
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > 12Z
> > > > > > > > > >> model
> > > > > > > > > >> >> run
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > with
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> 15Z
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > observed field.)
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > I think this is best
achieved with
> a
> > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > >> >> execution of
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> point_stat
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > for
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > each individual hour,
because
> that's
> > > how
> > > > I
> > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > >> gridtobs
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > anyway.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > What are your thoughts on
the
> above?
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Perry
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:32
PM,
> John
> > > > Halley
> > > > > > > > Gotway
> > > > > > > > > >> via
> > > > > > > > > >> >> RT <
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Hi Perry,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Howard Soh updated the
logic in
> the
> > > > PB2NC
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > >> >> the 1
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > and
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> 8-hour
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > COPO
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > observations in the way we
> > discussed.
> > > > I
> > > > > > > wanted
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> let
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> know
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> that
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > I
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > tested it this afternoon
and got
> > some
> > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > results.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> The
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> sample
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > fcst/obs
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > data you sent doesn't line
up
> well
> > in
> > > > > time,
> > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > >> just
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > set a
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> very
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > large
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > matching time window in
> Point-Stat.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Here's the relevant pieces
of the
> > > > > > Point-Stat
> > > > > > > > > config
> > > > > > > > > >> >> file:
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > fcst = {
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > field = [
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "OZCON";
level =
> > > "A01";
> > > > },
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "OZCON";
level =
> > > "A08";
> > > > }
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > ];
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > obs = {
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > message_type = [
"AIRNOW" ];
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > convert(x) = x*10^9;
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > field = [
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "COPO";
level =
> > "A01";
> > > > },
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "COPO";
level =
> > > "A08"; }
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > ];
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > And I'm just *guessing* at
that
> > > > > conversion
> > > > > > > > > factor.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> The
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > resulting
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > numbers
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > look about right, but its
up to
> you
> > > to
> > > > > > > confirm.
> > > > > > > > > >> Using
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > sample
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > data
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > you
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > sent me, this results in a
mean
> > error
> > > > > value
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >> 12.64
> > > > > > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> 15.48
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > for
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > 1
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > and 8-hour accums,
respectively.
> > But
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > fcst/obs
> > > > > > > > > >> >> data
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > are
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> actually
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > offset
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > by 12 hours so these
numbers
> don't
> > > mean
> > > > > > much,
> > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > >> >> than
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > demonstrating
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > there isn't a huge order
of
> > magnitude
> > > > > > > > difference.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > John
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at
2:06 PM,
> > John
> > > > > > Halley
> > > > > > > > > >> Gotway <
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> johnhg at ucar.edu
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > Perry,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > I think I prefer option
2 as
> > well.
> > > > > I'll
> > > > > > > ask
> > > > > > > > > >> Howard
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > Soh,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> one
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > of
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > developers here, to add
> specific
> > > > logic
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> AIRNOW
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> message
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> type,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > where...
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > - level = absolute
value of
> > TPHR
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > - qc flag = QCIND
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > John
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at
2:00
> PM,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> via
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > RT
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> <
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > met_help at ucar.edu>
wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <URL:
> > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Hi, John,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> What would be easier in
> > comparing
> > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > model
> > > > > > > > > >> >> output,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > do
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> you
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > think?
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > I
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> think that having it as
some
> > sort
> > > of
> > > > > > > > > >> "accumulation
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> variable"
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> (the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > 2nd
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> option) would work.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> In the model, though,
they are
> > not
> > > > > > listed
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > >> >> either 1
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > or
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> 8 hr
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> accumulations/averages.
They
> > are
> > > > > listed
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > >> either,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > for
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > example
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > for
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > 24
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> hr forecast, either
"23-24 hr
> > ave
> > > > > fcst"
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > >> "16-24
> > > > > > > > > >> >> hr
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > ave
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > fcst".
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > Would
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> easier if it said "1 hr
ave
> > fcst"
> > > or
> > > > > "8
> > > > > > hr
> > > > > > > > ave
> > > > > > > > > >> >> fcst",
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > but
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> again,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> not
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> what we got. So I'm
guessing
> > that
> > > > > might
> > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > >> it a
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > little
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > more
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > challenging
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> for the model to script
up?
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Perry
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at
3:50
> PM,
> > > > John
> > > > > > > Halley
> > > > > > > > > >> Gotway
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > via
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> RT <
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> met_help at ucar.edu>
wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Perry,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > I wanted to check how
point
> > > > > > observations
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >> >> precip
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > are
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> stored in
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> PrepBUFR
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > so I ran PB2NC on an
old
> NDAS
> > > file
> > > > > > using
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> -index
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> option.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > Here's
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> what I
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > found:
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP06:
TOTAL
> > > > > > > PRECIPITATION
> > > > > > > > > >> PAST 6
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > HOURS
> > > > > types:
> > > > > > > > ADPSFC
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1: TP24:
TOTAL
> > > > > > > PRECIPITATION
> > > > > > > > > >> PAST 24
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > HOURS
> > > > types:
> > > > > > > > ADPSFC
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > So basically, the
> accumulation
> > > > > > interval
> > > > > > > > > >> exists in
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > observation
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> variable
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > name. Following that
> > paradigm,
> > > if
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > AIRNOW
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> observations
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> were
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > stored
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > using COPO01 and
COPO08,
> then
> > > MET
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > >> already
> > > > > > > > > >> >> be
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > able
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> to
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > handle
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > them
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > already. But I
suppose
> we're
> > > > likely
> > > > > > > stuck
> > > > > > > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > > >> >> what
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> we've
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> got.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > I can see 2 ways we
could
> > handle
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > >> >> processing
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> AIRNOW
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > message
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > types...
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Option 1: Follow the
precip
> > > > example
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > modify
> > > > > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> observation
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > variable
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > names by appending
the TPHR
> > > value.
> > > > > > > > Instead
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >> >> COPO,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> we'd
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> have
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> observations
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > named COPO01 and
COPO08.
> And
> > if
> > > > we
> > > > > > ever
> > > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > > >> >> TPHR =
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > -24,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> that'd
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > produce
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> a
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > COPO24 variable name.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Option 2: We could
keep the
> > COPO
> > > > > > > variable
> > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> unchanged,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > and
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > instead
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> set
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the "level" value for
these
> > > > > > observations
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> >> indicate
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > accumulation
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > interval. If you
look at
> the
> > > > > ascii2nc
> > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > statement,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> you'll
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > see
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > following:
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > "Level" is the
pressure
> > level
> > > > > (hPa)
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > accumulation
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> interval
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> (HH[MMSS]).
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > So we could use the
value of
> > > TPHR
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > define
> > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > level
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> as an
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> "accumulation"
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > interval.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Either option could
be made
> to
> > > > work
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > MET.
> > > > > > > > > >> Does
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > one
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> make
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> more
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > sense
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > you than the other?
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > While we're doing
this, I
> > assume
> > > > we
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > >> also
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > using
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> QCIND
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > value
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > populate the obs_qty
(i.e.
> > > quality
> > > > > > > > control)
> > > > > > > > > >> >> setting?
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > John
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018
at 1:34
> > PM,
> > > > > John
> > > > > > > > Halley
> > > > > > > > > >> >> Gotway
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > <
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > johnhg at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Perry,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Until users dive
into the
> > > > details,
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > won't
> > > > > > > > > >> >> know
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > about
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> these
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > sorts
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> -1
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > vs -8 issues. But
once we
> > > > > identify
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > requirements,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> we
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> can
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > update
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > software to handle
them.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > So please keep the
> feedback
> > > > > coming.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > John
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 22,
2018 at
> 1:31
> > > PM,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> via
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > RT
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > <
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu>
wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> <URL:
> > > > > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Hi, John,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> OK, thanks! I
thought
> the
> > > > latest
> > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > >> of
> > > > > > > > > >> >> MET
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> that we
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> were
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > using
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> was
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> configured for the
air
> > > quality
> > > > > > > > > >> applications?
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Perry
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 22,
2018 at
> > 3:26
> > > > PM,
> > > > > > John
> > > > > > > > > >> Halley
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > Gotway
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> via
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> RT <
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Perry,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > I just grabbed
them and
> > ran
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > forecast
> > > > > > > > > >> >> data
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> through
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> plot_data_plane
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > utility. Looks
like
> > > > specifying
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > >> >> as an
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > accumulation
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > type
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> does
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > trick:
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_
> > > > > > > > data_plane
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> AWIP3D18.tm00
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > OZCON_1hr.ps
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON";
> > level="A1";'
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_
> > > > > > > > data_plane
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> AWIP3D18.tm00
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > OZCON_8hr.ps
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON";
> > level="A8";'
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > The resulting
images
> are
> > > > > > attached.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Next, I ran
pb2nc using
> > the
> > > > > > -index
> > > > > > > > > >> option to
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > see
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > a
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > description
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > prepda contents:
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/pb2nc
> > > > > > > prepda.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> 2017081000 <(201)%20708-1000> <(201)%20708-
1000>
> > > > > > > <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
prepda.2017081000.nc
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > /usr/local/met-6.1/share/met/
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > config/PB2NCConfig_default
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > -index -log
> > pb2nc_index.log
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
Header
> > > variables:
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
SID:
> > > STATION
> > > > > > > > > >> IDENTIFICATION
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
XOB:
> > > > LONGITUDE
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
YOB:
> > > > LATITUDE
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
DHR:
> > > > > OBSERVATION
> > > > > > > > TIME
> > > > > > > > > >> MINUS
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > CYCLE
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > TIME
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
ELV:
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
TYP:
> > > > PREPBUFR
> > > > > > > REPORT
> > > > > > > > > >> TYPE
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
T29:
> > DATA
> > > > DUMP
> > > > > > > > REPORT
> > > > > > > > > >> TYPE
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
ITP:
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
Observation
> > > > > > variables:
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
COPO:
> > > > > > CONCENTRATION
> > > > > > > > OF
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > POLLUTANT
> > > > > > > > > >> >> types:
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> AIRNOW
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
TYPO:
> > TYPE
> > > OF
> > > > > > > > POLLUTANT
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
CAT:
> > > > PREPBUFR
> > > > > > DATA
> > > > > > > > > LEVEL
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > CATEGORY
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
PROCN:
> > > PROCESS
> > > > > > > NUMBER
> > > > > > > > > FOR
> > > > > > > > > >> >> THIS
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > MPI
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> RUN
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > (OBTAINED
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> FROM
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > SCRIPT)
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
SQN:
> > > REPORT
> > > > > > > SEQUENCE
> > > > > > > > > >> NUMBER
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
QCIND:
> > > QUALITY
> > > > > > > CONTROL
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > INDICATION
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > OF
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > FOLLOWING
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DATA
> types:
> > > > AIRNOW
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
TSIG:
> > TIME
> > > > > > > > SIGNIFICANCE
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
RPT:
> > > > REPORTED
> > > > > > > > > >> OBSERVATION
> > > > > > > > > >> >> TIME
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
TPHR:
> > TIME
> > > > > PERIOD
> > > > > > > OR
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > DISPLACEMENT
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > I see the COPO
and TPHR
> > > > > > > observations
> > > > > > > > > >> listed.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > We'll
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> need to
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > update
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > PB2NC code to
handle
> the
> > > > logic
> > > > > > > you've
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > described.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > One option for
> specifying
> > > > the 1
> > > > > > vs
> > > > > > > 8
> > > > > > > > > hour
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> difference
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> would
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > be
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> mimic
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> how
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > different precip
> > > accumulation
> > > > > > > > intervals
> > > > > > > > > >> are
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > stored
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > gauges.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> I'll
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> look
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > more into how we
might
> do
> > > > that.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > John
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 22,
2018 at
> > > 12:17
> > > > > PM,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > via
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > RT
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
met_help at ucar.edu>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > <URL:
> > > > > > > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Hi, John,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > I was just
wondering
> if
> > > you
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > found
> > > > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> received
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> these
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > files.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Perry
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > On Wed, Feb
21, 2018
> at
> > > > 10:30
> > > > > > AM,
> > > > > > > > > Perry
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > Shafran -
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > NOAA
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Affiliate
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > I just
transferred
> > some
> > > > > model
> > > > > > > > files
> > > > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > > >> >> an
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > ob
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> file
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> here
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > on
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Theia.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> All
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > these model
files
> > > verify
> > > > at
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > ob
> > > > > > > > > >> time
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > here.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Have
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> a
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > look:
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > /scratch4/NCEPDEV/meso/save/
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Perry.Shafran/for_john
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Perry
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > On Tue, Feb
20,
> 2018
> > at
> > > > > 6:55
> > > > > > > PM,
> > > > > > > > > John
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > Halley
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Gotway
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> via
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > RT
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Hi Perry,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Can you
please
> point
> > > me
> > > > > to a
> > > > > > > > model
> > > > > > > > > >> >> output
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > file
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > containing
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > OZCON
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> fields?
> Presumably,
> > > > these
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > >> GRIB1
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > or 2
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> format,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > and
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > hopefully,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> there's
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> some flag
in the
> > > header
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > >> >> enable
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > us
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > distinguish
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > between
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> GRIB
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> records
> containing 1
> > > > and 8
> > > > > > > hour
> > > > > > > > > >> >> averages.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> As for the
point
> > > > > > > observations, I
> > > > > > > > > >> >> suspect
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > that
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > we'll
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > need
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> add
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> logic
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > to
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> PB2NC to
> distinguish
> > > > > between
> > > > > > > > the 1
> > > > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > > >> >> 8
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > hour
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > COPO
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > concentrations.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Perhaps
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> we could
update
> > PB2NC
> > > to
> > > > > use
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> TPHR
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > values
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> to
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > renamed
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > COPO
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> COPO_1
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > and
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> COPO_8?
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Are these
COPO
> point
> > > > > > > > observations
> > > > > > > > > >> >> present
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > in
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> NDAS
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> or
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > GDAS
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > PrepBUFR
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > files?
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> John
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> On Tue, Feb
20,
> 2018
> > > at
> > > > > 1:40
> > > > > > > PM,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > via
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> RT <
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
met_help at ucar.edu
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Tue Feb
20
> > 13:40:01
> > > > > 2018:
> > > > > > > > > Request
> > > > > > > > > >> >> 84134
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > was
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > acted
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > upon.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
Transaction:
> > Ticket
> > > > > > created
> > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
Queue:
> > > met_help
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
Subject:
> > > > verifying
> > > > > > > ozone
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
Owner:
> > Nobody
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
Requestors:
> > > > > > > > > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
Status:
> new
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Ticket
<URL:
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Hi,
everyone,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I am
helping the
> > AQM
> > > > > group
> > > > > > > > > verify
> > > > > > > > > >> >> ozone
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > and
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> I
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> need
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > some
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> assistance
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > in
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> using
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > PB2NC
(and then
> > > later
> > > > > > > > > point_stat,
> > > > > > > > > >> but
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > let's
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > start
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > with
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > PB2NC). I
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > need
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> to
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > be able
to read
> in
> > > two
> > > > > > > > > quantities
> > > > > > > > > >> >> from
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> prepbufr
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > file
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > then
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> combine
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > that to
be able
> to
> > > > > compare
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> two
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > model
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> items.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the
bufr
> file,
> > > the
> > > > > > > > variables
> > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > >> >> hand
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > are
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > COPO
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > (the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > ozone
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
concentration),
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > and also
TPHR.
> > TPHR
> > > > is
> > > > > > > either
> > > > > > > > > -1
> > > > > > > > > >> or
> > > > > > > > > >> >> -8
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> depending on
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > whether
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> observed
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > ozone is
a 1-hr
> or
> > > > 8-hr
> > > > > > > > average.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In
essence, we
> > have
> > > > two
> > > > > > > > entities
> > > > > > > > > >> here
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> depending
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> on
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> value of
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > TPHR:
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > 1-hr
average
> ozone
> > > and
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > 8-hr
> > > > > > > > > >> >> average
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> ozone.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> But
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > they
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> have
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > same
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > value.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the
model we
> > also
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > two
> > > > > > > > > >> >> variables.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> Both
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> are
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > called
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > OZCON,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> but
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > first one
in the
> > > file
> > > > > is a
> > > > > > > > 1-hr
> > > > > > > > > >> >> average
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > and
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > second
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > one
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> is
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 8-hr
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > The trick
here
> is
> > > > > > verifying
> > > > > > > > 1-hr
> > > > > > > > > >> >> average
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> with
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> 1-hr
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > average,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> 8-hr
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average
with
> 8-hr
> > > > > average.
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > >> think
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > there
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> is a
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> multiplication
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> factor
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > in
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > there
somewhere,
> > as
> > > > the
> > > > > > obs
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > >> >> units
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > of
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > mole/mole,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > while
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > model
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> is
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > in parts
per
> > billion
> > > > > > (ppb).
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I don't
know if
> > > you've
> > > > > > > spoken
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > AQM
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> team
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> on
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > how
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> exactly
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> to do
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> this,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > but I was
hoping
> > to
> > > > help
> > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > >> >> this.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > If
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > you
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> can
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > advise
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> on
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> how
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > to
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > do
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > this,
that would
> > be
> > > > > great!
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Perry
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: verifying ozone
From: perry.shafran at noaa.gov
Time: Thu Mar 29 10:08:27 2018
Hi, Julie,
Thanks!
Perry
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Julie Prestopnik via RT
<met_help at ucar.edu
> wrote:
> Hi Perry.
>
> I have installed met-7.1_beta2 on tide. You can access it by
running:
>
> module use /global/noscrub/Julie.Prestopnik/modulefiles/
> module load met/7.1_beta2
>
> Please let us know if you encounter any problems with running this
> version. Thanks for all of your help in finding issues!
>
> Julie
>
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 6:37 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> >
> > Hi, John,
> >
> > Also - in terms of valid time - you NEED to add the value of DHR
to the
> 12Z
> > time to get the actual valid time of that particular observation.
If you
> > can add that to your pb2nc processing, that would probably be what
we'd
> > need to do.
> >
> > We can certainly pick this up next week.
> >
> > Perry
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 5:08 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Perry,
> > >
> > > This is great. Thanks for sending the sample data. I pulled it
over
> and
> > > ran both an ANOWPM (aqm.t12z.anowpm.pb.tm00) and AIRNOW
> > > (aqm.t12z.prepbufr.tm00) file through PB2NC. Adding ANOWPM was
> > literally a
> > > 1-line change in PB2NC.
> > >
> > > Next, I ran pb2nc on two sample files, as shown below (I
attached the
> > > config file I used, but I'm just requesting "COPO" and
"COPOPM"):
> > >
> > > pb2nc \
> > > ./airnow/hourly.20180325/aqm.t12z.anowpm.pb.tm00 \
> > > ./airnow/hourly.20180325/aqm.t12z.anowpm.pb.tm00.nc \
> > > PB2NCConfig -log run_pb2nc.log
> > >
> > > pb2nc \
> > > airnow/hourly.20180325/aqm.t12z.prepbufr.tm00 \
> > > airnow/hourly.20180325/aqm.t12z.prepbufr.tm00.nc \
> > > PB2NCConfig -log run_pb2nc.log
> > >
> > > Next, I dumped the resulting NetCDF files to ascii like this:
> > >
> > > Rscript met/scripts/Rscripts/pntnc2ascii.R
airnow/hourly.20180325/
> > > aqm.t12z.prepbufr.tm00.nc > aqm.t12z.prepbufr.tm00.txt
> > > Rscriptmet/scripts/Rscripts/pntnc2ascii.R
./airnow/hourly.20180325/
> > > aqm.t12z.anowpm.pb.tm00.nc > aqm.t12z.anowpm.pb.tm00.txt
> > >
> > > And I've attached the resulting text files.
> > >
> > > I *think* they look good but thought you should take a look at
the data
> > to
> > > be sure. Note that the 8th column is the "accumulation
interval" or in
> > our
> > > case, averaging interval, in seconds. So 3600 means 1 hour and
28800
> > means
> > > 8 hours.
> > >
> > > Please look at the 3rd column, which is the valid time in
> YYYYMMDD_HHMMSS
> > > format. Notice that the valid time remains constant for all
these
> > > observations. Is that correct? Is that what you'd expect?
> > >
> > > I'm going to be out of the office Thurs/Fri during my kid's
spring
> break.
> > >
> > > I don't want to slow you down, so I think now is a good time to
do the
> > > met-7.1_beta2 release.
> > >
> > > That way Julie can install it on WCOSS while she's patching met-
7.0.
> > >
> > > So I'll do that this afternoon before heading out of the office.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > John
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 1:51 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via RT <
> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
>
> > > >
> > > > Hi, John,
> > > >
> > > > Super, thanks!
> > > >
> > > > Perry
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 3:50 PM, John Halley Gotway via RT <
> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Perry,
> > > > >
> > > > > Yep, the bug was introduced in met-7.0... and stuck around
for
> > > > > met-7.1_beta1. Howard added a fix to both the met trunk and
the
> > > > > met-7.0_bugfix branch... and I posted the fixes to the MET
website:
> > > > > https://dtcenter.org/met/users/support/known_issues/
> > > METv7.0/index.php
> > > > >
> > > > > Julie is back in the office tomorrow and will patch the 7.0
build
> and
> > > > > compile met-7.1_beta2 once I have it ready.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > John
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 12:22 PM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov via
RT <
> > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=84134 >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi, Julie,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just an FYI - I just ran the 7.0 version of MET and it
also
> failed
> > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > > same error, interestingly. But others did not report a
problem
> > like
> > > > this
> > > > > > in 7.0? Weird.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Perry
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Julie Prestopnik via RT <
> > > > > > met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Perry.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I can reproduce the problem on both tide and our local
machine.
> > It
> > > > > looks
> > > > > > > like an issue with the logic in when writing to the
NetCDF
> output
> > > > file.
> > > > > > > One of our software developers in working on the
problem. We
> > will
> > > > let
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > know when it is resolved.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I will be out of the office this coming Monday -
Wednesday,
> just
> > > FYI,
> > > > > so
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > may not be able to recompile on tide until next week.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regarding your question about the 7.1 beta, I think you
are
> > > probably
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > only one who knows about the 7.1 beta, but I don't think
it
> would
> > > be
> > > > a
> > > > > > > problem if you mentioned it to your colleagues.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Julie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:20 AM, perry.shafran at noaa.gov
via
> RT
> > <
> > > > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi, Julie,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yikes, it's all part a script, and it's not quite the
usage.
> > But
> > > > > here
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > the commands used from the output:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > pb2nc prepda.2018032200 prepda.nc.2018032200
> > > > > > > > /meso/save/Perry.Shafran/verif/nwtest/parm/PB2NCConfig
-v
> > > > > > > > 3
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > point_stat AWIP3D00.tm00 prepda.nc.2018032200
> > > > > > > > /meso/save/Perry.Shafran/verif/nwtest/parm/
> PointStatConfig_cv
> > > -v 3
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You can run these if you go to the directory
> > > > > > > >
/stmpp2/Perry.Shafran/tmpnwtest/verf_gridtobs_nam_00/00.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > BTW - am I the only one who knows about the 7.1 beta?
In
> case
> > > I'm
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > > supposed to bring it up among my colleagues?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Perry
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Julie Prestopnik via
RT <
> > > > > > > > met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Perry. My apologies for the delay in responding.
I was
> > out
> > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > office.
> > > > > > > > > I have copied over your script and would like to run
it to
> > see
> > > > if I
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > reproduce the error. I see the usage is:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > verf_gridtobs.sh $model $vday $vcyc
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Can you please send me the exact command line you
are
> running
> > > so
> > > > > > that I
> > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > try to reproduce the error? Or, to simply things you
could
> > send
> > > > me
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > single
> > > > > > > > > command line for pb2nc and point_stat so that I can
run
> that.
> > > > The
> > > > > > > latter
> > > > > > > > > option would be preferable in case my environment
isn't set
> > up
> > > as
> > > > > > yours
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > with all necessary items.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Julie
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 2:28 PM,
perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> via
> > > RT <
> > > > > > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi there,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I am trying out the new 7.1 beta, and I got this
error in
> > > both
> > > > > > pb2nc
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > point_stat (except for point_stat replace the 146
in the
> > > error
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > 80):
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > terminate called after throwing an instance of
> > > > > > > > > > 'netCDF::exceptions::NcBadId'
> > > > > > > > > > what(): NetCDF: Not a valid ID
> > > > > > > > > > file: ncVar.cpp line:146
> > > > > > > > > > /meso/save/Perry.Shafran/verif/nwtest/ush/verf_
> > > > > > > gridtobs_fits.sh[143]:
> > > > > > > > .:
> > > > > > > > > > line 217:
> > > > > > > > > > 41145: Abort(coredump)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Any idea what the issue is here?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Perry
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Perry Shafran -
NOAA
> > > > Affiliate <
> > > > > > > > > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Julie,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Perry
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 2:50 PM, Julie
Prestopnik via
> RT
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Perry.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> met-7.1_beta1 is now installed on tide. You
can
> access
> > it
> > > > by
> > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> following:
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> module use /global/noscrub/Julie.
> > Prestopnik/modulefiles
> > > > > > > > > > >> module load met/7.1_beta1
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Please let me know if you have any questions or
> > encounter
> > > > any
> > > > > > > > > problems.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > >> Julie
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 3:41 PM, John Halley
Gotway <
> > > > > > > > johnhg at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Perry and Julie,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > I just created a met-7.1_beta1 release to
enable
> Perry
> > > to
> > > > do
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > testing
> > > > > > > > > > >> > he needs.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > I posted the tarball to the MET website:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > www.dtcenter.org/met/users/
> > > > downloads/MET_releases/met-7.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > 1_beta1.20180316.tar.gz
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Perry, I assume it'd be most convenient for
you to
> > have
> > > > this
> > > > > > > > > available
> > > > > > > > > > >> on
> > > > > > > > > > >> > WCOSS for testing? If not, please let us
know
> where.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Julie, assuming Perry wants it on the dev
side of
> > WCOSS,
> > > > can
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > please
> > > > > > > > > > >> > install it in your personal area, and tell
Perry how
> > he
> > > > can
> > > > > > > access
> > > > > > > > > it?
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Here's the very short list of changes
included in
> > > > > > met-7.1_beta1
> > > > > > > > > (taken
> > > > > > > > > > >> > from the top-level README file):
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Version 7.1 BETA 1 Release Notes:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > --------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > - Make logic for finding matching UGRD/VGRD
> > verification
> > > > > tasks
> > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > >> robust
> > > > > > > > > > >> > in
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Point-Stat and Grid-Stat.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > - Fix PB2NC's computation of valid time for
AIRNOW
> > > > > > observations.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > - Minor bugfix for Series-Analysis when
computing
> > > min/max
> > > > > > timing
> > > > > > > > > info
> > > > > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > > >> > series with some missing input files.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > - Enable vld_thresh = 0 in Ensemble-Stat and
> > > > > Series-Analysis.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > - Update pntnc2ascii.R Rscript to handle
obs_var
> > > variable.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > John
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 6:46 AM,
> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > via
> > > > > > RT
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> Hi, John,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> At this point my main concern is the ability
to run
> > MET
> > > > and
> > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > >> MET
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> output on some of the air quality items.
Then once
> > > > that's
> > > > > > > done,
> > > > > > > > > > worry
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> later about METViewer concerns. I do think
we'll
> > want
> > > to
> > > > > > > > > eventually
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> compare VSDB vs MET output using METViewer,
but
> that
> > > > seems
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > down
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> road issue (though not too far down the
road, so if
> > > there
> > > > > is
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > >> METViewer
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> update coming up, put this in it).
> > > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> Perry
> > > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 5:31 PM, John Halley
Gotway
> > via
> > > > RT
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > Perry,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > On Monday, we decided that I should do the
first
> > (and
> > > > > very
> > > > > > > > early)
> > > > > > > > > > >> beta
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > release of met-7.1 to get this feature to
you for
> > > > > testing.
> > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > version really shouldn't be used for
anything
> other
> > > > than
> > > > > > > > testing.
> > > > > > > > > > >> Since
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > this is a beta version for 7.1, my
inclination
> > would
> > > be
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > increment
> > > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > version number of the output now... to
7.1. The
> > only
> > > > > > > downside
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > >> that
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> it
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > won't be possible to load 7.1 output in
> METViewer.
> > > The
> > > > > > > loader
> > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> error
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > out and say that it doesn't know anything
about
> > > version
> > > > > > 7.1.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > If you need to be able to load this output
into
> > > > > METViewer,
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> keep
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > the version number back at 7.0... but I'm
really
> > > > worried
> > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> version-itis
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > here. I don't want to create a confusing
mess of
> > > > output.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > Any thoughts?
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > John
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:57 AM,
> > > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > via
> > > > > > > > RT
> > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Tic
> > > > > > > > ket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > Hi, John,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > I'm not sure I caught whether you have
> something
> > > for
> > > > me
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> not.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > I
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > think you were asking how to deliver
these
> > updates
> > > > for
> > > > > > > ozone
> > > > > > > > > so I
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> guess
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > need to deliver first before I can test
> anything.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > Perry
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Perry
Shafran -
> > > NOAA
> > > > > > > > Affiliate
> > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > Hi, John,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > Super, thanks! Let me know if there
are any
> > > > aspects
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > >> need
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > clarification.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > Perry
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:48 PM, John
Halley
> > > Gotway
> > > > > via
> > > > > > > RT <
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> Perry,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> Yes, I received it. Thanks for the
info. I
> > > wrote
> > > > > up
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > >> development
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > ticket
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> in JiRA to handle this and Howard Soh
is
> > taking
> > > a
> > > > > look
> > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > >> I'll
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > let
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> you
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> know when we have an update for you.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> John
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:31 PM,
> > > > > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > > > via
> > > > > > > > > > RT <
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > > > > > > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Hi, John,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > I was just wondering if you got
this
> message
> > > > > > regarding
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> DHR in
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> ozone
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > airnow file. I hadn't received any
> > > > > acknowledgement
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> think
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> that if
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > we are going to read this data
correctly
> for
> > > > > > > > verification,
> > > > > > > > > > >> we'll
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > have
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> to be
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > aware of this and use the DHR to
add DHR
> to
> > > the
> > > > > > file's
> > > > > > > > > > >> timestamp
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> in
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> order
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > to get the right ob at the right
time.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Perry
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 12:07 PM,
Perry
> > > Shafran -
> > > > > > NOAA
> > > > > > > > > > >> Affiliate <
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > Hi, John,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > For ozone (and for PM likely as
well),
> the
> > > DHR
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > tell
> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > time
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> of
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > the observation. The DHR ranges
from
> -11
> > to
> > > > 12
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > > >> file,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> so
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > if
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> you
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > have an observation with DHR of
-10, for
> > > > > example,
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > observations
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > is
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > valid at 02Z. I guess I should
have
> done
> > > > better
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > note
> > > > > > > > > > >> this
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > previously, but you will need
this
> > > additional
> > > > > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> order
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> get
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > the valid time of the
observation. My
> > > > apologies
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> realizing
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> this
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > sooner (like before 7.0 was
released).
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > The 00Z valid time (as in your
> example), I
> > > > just
> > > > > > > > > realized,
> > > > > > > > > > >> is a
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > special
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > case. Since the DHR ranges from
-11 to
> > 12,
> > > > that
> > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > valid
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > times
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > in the file range from 01Z to 00Z
the
> next
> > > > day.
> > > > > > > > That's
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> reason
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > for
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > this
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > - it is indeed the 2017080912
> > > > <(201)%20708-0912>
> > > > > > > > <(201)%20708-0912>
> > > > > > > > > > >> <(201)%20708-0912>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> <(201)%20708-0912> file but this
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> particular
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > valid time is 2017081000
> > <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > > > <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > > > > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> <(201)%20708-1000> because DHR is 12 in
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > this
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > case. So that makes it extra
special
> fun
> > > for
> > > > > > > > verifying
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > 00Z
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> valid
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > time, since we will have to go to
the
> > > previous
> > > > > > day's
> > > > > > > > obs
> > > > > > > > > > >> file
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> verify
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > that. Every other hour of the
day, you
> > > won't
> > > > > see
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> mismatch.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > Perry
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:59 AM,
John
> > Halley
> > > > > > Gotway
> > > > > > > > via
> > > > > > > > > > RT <
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> Perry,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> Yes, I see that all the AWIP*
GRIB2
> files
> > > you
> > > > > > sent
> > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> valid
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > at
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> 2017081000.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> However, the point observations
in the
> > > > prepda.
> > > > > > > > > 2017081000
> > > > > > > > > > >> are
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > valid
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> at
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> 20170809_120000. Or at least
that's
> what
> > > the
> > > > > > > output
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > >> PB2NC
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > tells
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> me!
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> The timestamps of the data
contained in
> > > > prepda.
> > > > > > > > > > 2017081000
> > > > > > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> 12-hours
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> earlier than the timestamp of
that file
> > > > > > indicates.
> > > > > > > > > > Here's
> > > > > > > > > > >> a
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> log
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> message
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> from PB2NC listing out the
"center
> time"
> > > for
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > file:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> DEBUG 1: Processing Bufr
File:
> > prepda.
> > > > > > > 2017081000
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> DEBUG 2: Bufr Time Center:
> > > > > > 20170809_120000
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> Perhaps there's a problem in the
naming
> > > > > > convention
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > "prepda"
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> file... or perhaps there's a
good
> reason
> > > for
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > 12-hour
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > offset...
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > or
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> perhaps there's some problem in
the MET
> > > code
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > we're
> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > reading
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> data
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> from that file correctly?
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> John
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:37 AM,
> > > > > > > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > > > > > via
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> RT <
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Tic
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> ket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > OK, thanks! So this is
included in
> the
> > > > > latest
> > > > > > > MET
> > > > > > > > > > >> release.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> I
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > think
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> there
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > will definitely be other
questions,
> if
> > I
> > > > want
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > verify
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > each
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > hourly forecast of ozone with
the
> > > > > observation.
> > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > DHR
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> tells
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > us
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> which
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> hour
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > that we are looking for to
verify.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > Perry
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:25
AM, John
> > > > Halley
> > > > > > > Gotway
> > > > > > > > > via
> > > > > > > > > > >> RT <
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > Hi Perry,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > We just posted the met-7.0
release
> > > > > yesterday.
> > > > > > > > > Julie
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > Prestopnik
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> is
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > actually
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > out at NCEP today, and
she'll be
> the
> > > one
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > install
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > >> on
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> WCOSS. So
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> I'll
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > let her chime in to let us
know
> when
> > > > she's
> > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> that.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > John
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:27
AM,
> > > > > > > > > > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> via
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > RT
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > <URL:
> https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > I am able to start working
on
> this
> > > > today.
> > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > available
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > testing
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > now?
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Also I'm not entirely sure
what
> you
> > > > mean
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> obs
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > and
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> model
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > don't match up well in
time? In
> > the
> > > > > > example
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > sent
> > > > > > > > > > >> you,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> have
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > a
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> set
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > of
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > observations and all the
forecast
> > > files
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > verify
> > > > > > > > > > >> at
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> that
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> particular
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > time. Both the model and
> observed
> > > bufr
> > > > > > file
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> 1-hourly
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> fields
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > (hourly
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > fields of 1-hr and hourly
fields
> of
> > > > 8-hr
> > > > > > > ozone
> > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > >> kind of
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > hard
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> to
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > imagine
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > that, but they are just
values).
> > So
> > > we
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > >> need a
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > way
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> match
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > up
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > the observed field with
the
> modeled
> > > > field
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > corresponding
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > time.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > (For
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > example, matching the 3-hr
> forecast
> > > > from
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > 12Z
> > > > > > > > > > >> model
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> run
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > with
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> 15Z
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > observed field.)
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > I think this is best
achieved
> with
> > a
> > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> execution of
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> point_stat
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > for
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > each individual hour,
because
> > that's
> > > > how
> > > > > I
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > >> gridtobs
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > anyway.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > What are your thoughts on
the
> > above?
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > Perry
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at
3:32 PM,
> > John
> > > > > Halley
> > > > > > > > > Gotway
> > > > > > > > > > >> via
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> RT <
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > met_help at ucar.edu
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Hi Perry,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Howard Soh updated the
logic in
> > the
> > > > > PB2NC
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> the 1
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> 8-hour
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > COPO
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > observations in the way
we
> > > discussed.
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > > wanted
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >> let
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> know
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> that
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > I
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > tested it this afternoon
and
> got
> > > some
> > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > results.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> The
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> sample
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > fcst/obs
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > data you sent doesn't
line up
> > well
> > > in
> > > > > > time,
> > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > >> just
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > set a
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> very
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > large
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > matching time window in
> > Point-Stat.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Here's the relevant
pieces of
> the
> > > > > > > Point-Stat
> > > > > > > > > > config
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> file:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > fcst = {
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > field = [
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "OZCON";
level =
> > > > "A01";
> > > > > },
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "OZCON";
level =
> > > > "A08";
> > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > ];
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > obs = {
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > message_type = [
"AIRNOW"
> ];
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > convert(x) = x*10^9;
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > field = [
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "COPO";
level =
> > > "A01";
> > > > > },
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > { name = "COPO";
level =
> > > > "A08"; }
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > ];
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > And I'm just *guessing*
at that
> > > > > > conversion
> > > > > > > > > > factor.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> The
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > resulting
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > numbers
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > look about right, but
its up to
> > you
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > confirm.
> > > > > > > > > > >> Using
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > sample
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > data
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > sent me, this results in
a mean
> > > error
> > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > >> 12.64
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> 15.48
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > for
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > 1
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > and 8-hour accums,
> respectively.
> > > But
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > fcst/obs
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> data
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > are
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> actually
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > offset
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > by 12 hours so these
numbers
> > don't
> > > > mean
> > > > > > > much,
> > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> than
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > demonstrating
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > there isn't a huge order
of
> > > magnitude
> > > > > > > > > difference.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > John
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at
2:06
> PM,
> > > John
> > > > > > > Halley
> > > > > > > > > > >> Gotway <
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> johnhg at ucar.edu
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > Perry,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > I think I prefer
option 2 as
> > > well.
> > > > > > I'll
> > > > > > > > ask
> > > > > > > > > > >> Howard
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > Soh,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> one
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > of
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > developers here, to
add
> > specific
> > > > > logic
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> AIRNOW
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> message
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> type,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > where...
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > - level = absolute
value
> of
> > > TPHR
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > - qc flag = QCIND
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > John
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018
at 2:00
> > PM,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> via
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > RT
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> <
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > > met_help at ucar.edu>
wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <URL:
> > > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Hi, John,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> What would be easier
in
> > > comparing
> > > > to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > model
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> output,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > do
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> you
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > think?
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> think that having it
as some
> > > sort
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > >> "accumulation
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> variable"
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> (the
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > 2nd
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> option) would work.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> In the model, though,
they
> are
> > > not
> > > > > > > listed
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> either 1
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > or
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> 8 hr
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
accumulations/averages.
> They
> > > are
> > > > > > listed
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > >> either,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > for
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > example
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > for
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > 24
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> hr forecast, either
"23-24
> hr
> > > ave
> > > > > > fcst"
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > >> "16-24
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> hr
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > ave
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > fcst".
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > Would
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> easier if it said "1
hr ave
> > > fcst"
> > > > or
> > > > > > "8
> > > > > > > hr
> > > > > > > > > ave
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> fcst",
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > but
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> again,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> not
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> what we got. So I'm
> guessing
> > > that
> > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > >> it a
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > little
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > more
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > challenging
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> for the model to
script up?
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Perry
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018
at 3:50
> > PM,
> > > > > John
> > > > > > > > Halley
> > > > > > > > > > >> Gotway
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > via
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> RT <
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> met_help at ucar.edu>
wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Perry,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > I wanted to check
how
> point
> > > > > > > observations
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> precip
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > are
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> stored in
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> PrepBUFR
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > so I ran PB2NC on
an old
> > NDAS
> > > > file
> > > > > > > using
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> -index
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> option.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > Here's
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> what I
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > found:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1:
TP06:
> TOTAL
> > > > > > > > PRECIPITATION
> > > > > > > > > > >> PAST 6
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > HOURS
> > > > > > types:
> > > > > > > > > ADPSFC
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > DEBUG 1:
TP24:
> TOTAL
> > > > > > > > PRECIPITATION
> > > > > > > > > > >> PAST 24
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > HOURS
> > > > > types:
> > > > > > > > > ADPSFC
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > So basically, the
> > accumulation
> > > > > > > interval
> > > > > > > > > > >> exists in
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > observation
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> variable
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > name. Following
that
> > > paradigm,
> > > > if
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > AIRNOW
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> observations
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> were
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > stored
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > using COPO01 and
COPO08,
> > then
> > > > MET
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > >> already
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> be
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > able
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> to
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > handle
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > already. But I
suppose
> > we're
> > > > > likely
> > > > > > > > stuck
> > > > > > > > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> what
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> we've
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> got.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > I can see 2 ways we
could
> > > handle
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> processing
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> AIRNOW
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > message
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > types...
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Option 1: Follow
the
> precip
> > > > > example
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > modify
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> observation
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > variable
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > names by appending
the
> TPHR
> > > > value.
> > > > > > > > > Instead
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> COPO,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> we'd
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> have
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> observations
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > named COPO01 and
COPO08.
> > And
> > > if
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > ever
> > > > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> TPHR =
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > -24,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> that'd
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > produce
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> a
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > COPO24 variable
name.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Option 2: We could
keep
> the
> > > COPO
> > > > > > > > variable
> > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> unchanged,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > and
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > instead
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> set
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the "level" value
for
> these
> > > > > > > observations
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> indicate
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > accumulation
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > interval. If you
look at
> > the
> > > > > > ascii2nc
> > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > statement,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> you'll
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > see
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > following:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > "Level" is the
pressure
> > > level
> > > > > > (hPa)
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > accumulation
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> interval
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> (HH[MMSS]).
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > So we could use the
value
> of
> > > > TPHR
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > define
> > > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > level
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> as an
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> "accumulation"
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > interval.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Either option could
be
> made
> > to
> > > > > work
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > MET.
> > > > > > > > > > >> Does
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > one
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> make
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> more
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > sense
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > you than the other?
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > While we're doing
this, I
> > > assume
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > >> also
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > using
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> QCIND
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > populate the
obs_qty (i.e.
> > > > quality
> > > > > > > > > control)
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> setting?
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > John
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > On Thu, Feb 22,
2018 at
> 1:34
> > > PM,
> > > > > > John
> > > > > > > > > Halley
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> Gotway
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > <
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > johnhg at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Perry,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Until users dive
into
> the
> > > > > details,
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > won't
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> know
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > about
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> these
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > sorts
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> -1
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > vs -8 issues.
But once
> we
> > > > > > identify
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > requirements,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> we
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> can
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > update
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > software to
handle them.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > So please keep
the
> > feedback
> > > > > > coming.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > John
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 22,
2018 at
> > 1:31
> > > > PM,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> via
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > RT
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
met_help at ucar.edu>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> <URL:
> > > > > > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Hi, John,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> OK, thanks! I
thought
> > the
> > > > > latest
> > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > >> of
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> MET
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> that we
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> were
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > using
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> was
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> configured for
the air
> > > > quality
> > > > > > > > > > >> applications?
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Perry
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 22,
2018 at
> > > 3:26
> > > > > PM,
> > > > > > > John
> > > > > > > > > > >> Halley
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > Gotway
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> via
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> RT <
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
met_help at ucar.edu>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Perry,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > I just grabbed
them
> and
> > > ran
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > forecast
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> data
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> through
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> plot_data_plane
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > utility.
Looks like
> > > > > specifying
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> as an
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > accumulation
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> does
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > trick:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_
> > > > > > > > > data_plane
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> AWIP3D18.tm00
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > OZCON_1hr.ps
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON";
> > > level="A1";'
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/plot_
> > > > > > > > > data_plane
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> AWIP3D18.tm00
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > OZCON_8hr.ps
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 'name="OZCON";
> > > level="A8";'
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > The resulting
images
> > are
> > > > > > > attached.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Next, I ran
pb2nc
> using
> > > the
> > > > > > > -index
> > > > > > > > > > >> option to
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > see
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > a
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > description
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > prepda
contents:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > /usr/local/met-6.1/bin/pb2nc
> > > > > > > > prepda.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> 2017081000 <(201)%20708-1000> <(201)%20708-
1000>
> > > > > > > > <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <(201)%20708-1000>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
prepda.2017081000.nc
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > /usr/local/met-6.1/share/met/
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > config/PB2NCConfig_default
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > -index -log
> > > pb2nc_index.log
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
Header
> > > > variables:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
SID:
> > > > STATION
> > > > > > > > > > >> IDENTIFICATION
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
XOB:
> > > > > LONGITUDE
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
YOB:
> > > > > LATITUDE
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
DHR:
> > > > > > OBSERVATION
> > > > > > > > > TIME
> > > > > > > > > > >> MINUS
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > CYCLE
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > TIME
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
ELV:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
TYP:
> > > > > PREPBUFR
> > > > > > > > REPORT
> > > > > > > > > > >> TYPE
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
T29:
> > > DATA
> > > > > DUMP
> > > > > > > > > REPORT
> > > > > > > > > > >> TYPE
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
ITP:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
> Observation
> > > > > > > variables:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
COPO:
> > > > > > > CONCENTRATION
> > > > > > > > > OF
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > POLLUTANT
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> types:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> AIRNOW
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
TYPO:
> > > TYPE
> > > > OF
> > > > > > > > > POLLUTANT
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
CAT:
> > > > > PREPBUFR
> > > > > > > DATA
> > > > > > > > > > LEVEL
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > CATEGORY
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
PROCN:
> > > > PROCESS
> > > > > > > > NUMBER
> > > > > > > > > > FOR
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> THIS
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > MPI
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> RUN
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > (OBTAINED
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> FROM
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > SCRIPT)
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
SQN:
> > > > REPORT
> > > > > > > > SEQUENCE
> > > > > > > > > > >> NUMBER
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
QCIND:
> > > > QUALITY
> > > > > > > > CONTROL
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > INDICATION
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > OF
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > FOLLOWING
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DATA
> > types:
> > > > > AIRNOW
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
TSIG:
> > > TIME
> > > > > > > > > SIGNIFICANCE
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
RPT:
> > > > > REPORTED
> > > > > > > > > > >> OBSERVATION
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> TIME
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > DEBUG 1:
TPHR:
> > > TIME
> > > > > > PERIOD
> > > > > > > > OR
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > DISPLACEMENT
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > I see the COPO
and
> TPHR
> > > > > > > > observations
> > > > > > > > > > >> listed.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > We'll
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> need to
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > update
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > PB2NC code to
handle
> > the
> > > > > logic
> > > > > > > > you've
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > described.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > One option for
> > specifying
> > > > > the 1
> > > > > > > vs
> > > > > > > > 8
> > > > > > > > > > hour
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> difference
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> would
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > be
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> mimic
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> how
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > different
precip
> > > > accumulation
> > > > > > > > > intervals
> > > > > > > > > > >> are
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > stored
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > gauges.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> I'll
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> look
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > more into how
we
> might
> > do
> > > > > that.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > John
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > On Thu, Feb
22, 2018
> at
> > > > 12:17
> > > > > > PM,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > via
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > RT
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > <URL:
> > > > > > > > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Hi, John,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > I was just
> wondering
> > if
> > > > you
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > found
> > > > > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> received
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> these
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > files.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Perry
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > On Wed, Feb
21,
> 2018
> > at
> > > > > 10:30
> > > > > > > AM,
> > > > > > > > > > Perry
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > Shafran -
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > NOAA
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > Affiliate
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> <
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Hi, John,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > I just
> transferred
> > > some
> > > > > > model
> > > > > > > > > files
> > > > > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> an
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > ob
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> file
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> here
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > on
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> Theia.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> All
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > these
model files
> > > > verify
> > > > > at
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > ob
> > > > > > > > > > >> time
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > here.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Have
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> a
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > look:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > /scratch4/NCEPDEV/meso/save/
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Perry.Shafran/for_john
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Perry
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > On Tue,
Feb 20,
> > 2018
> > > at
> > > > > > 6:55
> > > > > > > > PM,
> > > > > > > > > > John
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > Halley
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Gotway
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> via
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > RT
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Hi Perry,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Can you
please
> > point
> > > > me
> > > > > > to a
> > > > > > > > > model
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> output
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > file
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > containing
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > OZCON
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> fields?
> > Presumably,
> > > > > these
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > >> GRIB1
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > or 2
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> format,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > and
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > hopefully,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> there's
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> some flag
in the
> > > > header
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> enable
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > us
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > distinguish
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > between
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> GRIB
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> records
> > containing 1
> > > > > and 8
> > > > > > > > hour
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> averages.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> As for
the point
> > > > > > > > observations, I
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> suspect
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > that
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > we'll
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > need
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> add
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> logic
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > to
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> PB2NC to
> > distinguish
> > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > the 1
> > > > > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> 8
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > hour
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > COPO
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > concentrations.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Perhaps
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> we could
update
> > > PB2NC
> > > > to
> > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> TPHR
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > values
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> to
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > renamed
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > COPO
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> COPO_1
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> COPO_8?
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Are these
COPO
> > point
> > > > > > > > > observations
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> present
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > in
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> NDAS
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> or
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > GDAS
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > PrepBUFR
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > files?
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> John
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> On Tue,
Feb 20,
> > 2018
> > > > at
> > > > > > 1:40
> > > > > > > > PM,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > via
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> RT <
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> met_help at ucar.edu
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Tue Feb
20
> > > 13:40:01
> > > > > > 2018:
> > > > > > > > > > Request
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> 84134
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > was
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > acted
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > upon.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
Transaction:
> > > Ticket
> > > > > > > created
> > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
Queue:
> > > > met_help
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
Subject:
> > > > > verifying
> > > > > > > > ozone
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
Owner:
> > > Nobody
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
Requestors:
> > > > > > > > > > >> perry.shafran at noaa.gov
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
Status:
> > new
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Ticket
<URL:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > Ticket/Display.html?id=84134
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Hi,
everyone,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I am
helping
> the
> > > AQM
> > > > > > group
> > > > > > > > > > verify
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> ozone
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> I
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> need
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > some
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> assistance
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > in
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> using
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > PB2NC
(and
> then
> > > > later
> > > > > > > > > > point_stat,
> > > > > > > > > > >> but
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > let's
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > start
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > with
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > PB2NC). I
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > need
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> to
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > be able
to
> read
> > in
> > > > two
> > > > > > > > > > quantities
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> from
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> prepbufr
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > file
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > then
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> combine
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > that to
be
> able
> > to
> > > > > > compare
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> two
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > model
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> items.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the
bufr
> > file,
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > variables
> > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> hand
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > are
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > COPO
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > (the
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > ozone
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
concentration),
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > and
also TPHR.
> > > TPHR
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > either
> > > > > > > > > > -1
> > > > > > > > > > >> or
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> -8
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> depending on
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > whether
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> observed
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > ozone
is a
> 1-hr
> > or
> > > > > 8-hr
> > > > > > > > > average.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In
essence, we
> > > have
> > > > > two
> > > > > > > > > entities
> > > > > > > > > > >> here
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> depending
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> on
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> value of
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > TPHR:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > 1-hr
average
> > ozone
> > > > and
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > 8-hr
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> average
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> ozone.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> But
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > they
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> have
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > same
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > value.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > In the
model
> we
> > > also
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > two
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> variables.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> Both
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> are
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > called
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > OZCON,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> but
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > first
one in
> the
> > > > file
> > > > > > is a
> > > > > > > > > 1-hr
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> average
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > second
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> is
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 8-hr
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
average.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > The
trick here
> > is
> > > > > > > verifying
> > > > > > > > > 1-hr
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> average
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> with
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> 1-hr
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > average,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> 8-hr
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > average
with
> > 8-hr
> > > > > > average.
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > >> think
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > there
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> is a
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> multiplication
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> factor
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > in
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > there
> somewhere,
> > > as
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > obs
> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> units
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > of
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > mole/mole,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > while
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > model
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> is
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > in
parts per
> > > billion
> > > > > > > (ppb).
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > I don't
know
> if
> > > > you've
> > > > > > > > spoken
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > AQM
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> team
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> on
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > how
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> exactly
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> to do
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> this,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > but I
was
> hoping
> > > to
> > > > > help
> > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> this.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > If
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > you
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> can
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > advise
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> on
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> how
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > to
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > do
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > this,
that
> would
> > > be
> > > > > > great!
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Perry
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------------------------
More information about the Met_help
mailing list