[Met_help] [rt.rap.ucar.edu #95969] History for database and model
John Halley Gotway via RT
met_help at ucar.edu
Thu Oct 1 14:22:19 MDT 2020
----------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Request
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
This is Binyu Wang from EMC and I have two questions about the database and
model.
1. I have two models: Raikoke and Raikoke_31.1p0, after I run the ensemble
verification, I put the "ensemble*stat" and "grid*stat" outputs from both
models under the same directory:
/gpfs/dell2/emc/modeling/noscrub/Binyu.Wang/MET/stat/met_Raikoke_stat. They
are also under same database: mv_g2g_met_verf_Raikoke
When I tried to make plot using METViewer, under database
" mv_g2g_met_verf_Raikoke", both of model appears under MODEL for Hist
plot, so I can choose which one I want, but there is no such option for
"Series" plot. Does that mean all plots under "Series" include both
"Raikoke" and "Raikoke_31.1p0"?
2.
I am doing ensemble verification (gefs) using ensemble_stat and grid_stat
utilities;
I am wondering if there is any difference between the two operations below?
(assuming I have 100 sites overall):
a. I do verification using all the 100 sites .
%ensemble_stat ensemble_file_list $CONFIG_FILE -grid_obs OBSV_FILE-100sites
b.I first do verification using ONLY 50 sites, and then repeat the same
operation using another 50 sites. And I put all the ensemble_stat and
grid_stat output (the output from the first-50-run and second-50-run will
have different names) into the same directory.
%ensemble_stat ensemble_file_list $CONFIG_FILE -grid_obs
OBSV_FILE-50sites
%ensemble_stat ensemble_file_list $CONFIG_FILE -grid_obs
OBSV_FILE-another_50sites
If I upload all the output into METViewer database,, will I get
different plots from the 2 operations above
Thank you.
Binyu
----------------------------------------------------------------
Complete Ticket History
----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: database and model
From: John Halley Gotway
Time: Tue Jul 21 14:29:17 2020
Binyu,
I'm not seeing the behavior in METvieewr you describe. I've attached 2
screenshots from METviewer showing the both models appear under the
MODEL
list for the Hist and Series templates. So the models listed look
consistent across the 2 templates.
If you launch METviewer during the load process, your browser will
cache
the values... for example the list of MODEL values. And rather than
seeing
the complete list, you may see the cached, incomplete list. Please try
holding down the shift and ctrl buttons while clicking the refresh
button
to clear the browser cache.
Regarding the second question, the answer is yes and no. If you run
grid_stat twice, once with 50 stations and a second time with 50 more
stations, grid_stat will write 2 sets of output. For example, you'll
have 2
RMSE statistics in the CNT line type, and you'll have 2 SL1L2 output
lines.
In METviewer, you can plot the mean of daily RMSE statistics or plot
the
aggregated RMSE value. The mean of 2 RMSE values will not, in general,
be
the same as the single RMSE value from 100 stations. However, the
aggregated RMSE value (computed from aggregated SL1L2 lines) will be
the
same as the single RMSE value from the 100 stations.
Hope that helps clarify.
John
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 11:59 AM binyu.wang at noaa.gov via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> Tue Jul 21 11:59:46 2020: Request 95969 was acted upon.
> Transaction: Ticket created by binyu.wang at noaa.gov
> Queue: met_help
> Subject: database and model
> Owner: Nobody
> Requestors: binyu.wang at noaa.gov
> Status: new
> Ticket <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=95969 >
>
>
> Hello,
>
> This is Binyu Wang from EMC and I have two questions about the
database and
> model.
>
> 1. I have two models: Raikoke and Raikoke_31.1p0, after I run the
ensemble
> verification, I put the "ensemble*stat" and "grid*stat" outputs
from both
> models under the same directory:
>
/gpfs/dell2/emc/modeling/noscrub/Binyu.Wang/MET/stat/met_Raikoke_stat.
They
> are also under same database: mv_g2g_met_verf_Raikoke
>
> When I tried to make plot using METViewer, under database
> " mv_g2g_met_verf_Raikoke", both of model appears under MODEL for
Hist
> plot, so I can choose which one I want, but there is no such option
for
> "Series" plot. Does that mean all plots under "Series" include both
> "Raikoke" and "Raikoke_31.1p0"?
>
> 2.
> I am doing ensemble verification (gefs) using ensemble_stat and
grid_stat
> utilities;
> I am wondering if there is any difference between the two operations
below?
> (assuming I have 100 sites overall):
>
> a. I do verification using all the 100 sites .
> %ensemble_stat ensemble_file_list $CONFIG_FILE -grid_obs
> OBSV_FILE-100sites
>
> b.I first do verification using ONLY 50 sites, and then repeat the
same
> operation using another 50 sites. And I put all the ensemble_stat
and
> grid_stat output (the output from the first-50-run and second-50-run
will
> have different names) into the same directory.
>
> %ensemble_stat ensemble_file_list $CONFIG_FILE -grid_obs
> OBSV_FILE-50sites
> %ensemble_stat ensemble_file_list $CONFIG_FILE -grid_obs
> OBSV_FILE-another_50sites
> If I upload all the output into METViewer database,, will I get
> different plots from the 2 operations above
>
> Thank you.
> Binyu
>
> Good afternoon,
>
> I was wondering if anyone would be able to tar up some more data for
that
> case other than the number concentration. I wouldn't mind looking
at some
> additional fields that you all think would be relevant. I'm not
sure
> what's available, but if a list is provided, I can also point to
some
> fields I'd be interested in looking at as well. Thanks
>
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 10:31 AM Edward Strobach - NOAA Affiliate <
> edward.strobach at noaa.gov> wrote:
>
> > Hi Barbara and Alice,
> >
> > I've finished the analysis of the volcanic plume for different
members
> > using the mass concentration field. Several more ideas came to
light as
> I
> > started digging in. I have all the methods laid out in the slides
as
> well,
> > which reference the slides where the approach was employed. I
believe
> > several of these approaches proved useful; at least one approach,
> however,
> > was purely experimental. Given that I can group points within
contours,
> I
> > think the next step will be to expand this analysis by grouping
indices
> for
> > relevant fields, and examine, for example, joint probability
> > distributions. It would be great to have additional information
such as
> > 3-D winds, temperature, and humidity, deposition, PBL height, TKE,
etc.
> I
> > hope you find this useful. Let me know if you have any questions.
> > Thanks.
> >
> > *FYI, since there are animated .gif files, you will have to
download the
> > powerpoint and view it in slideshow mode*
> >
> > Volcanic_Plume_Analysis.pptx
> > <
>
https://drive.google.com/a/noaa.gov/file/d/10YvUoWzB6WS_nowB1ukaywItqOkyn0Nl/view?usp=drive_web
> >
> >
> > --
> > Edward Strobach
> > EMC/NCEP/NWS/
> > IMSG Contractor
> > Cubicle#: 2029
> > 301-683-3717
> >
>
>
> --
> Edward Strobach
> EMC/NCEP/NWS/
> IMSG Contractor
> Cubicle#: 2029
> 301-683-3717
> Good afternoon,
>
> I was wondering if anyone would be able to tar up some more data for
that
> case other than the number concentration. I wouldn't mind looking
at some
> additional fields that you all think would be relevant. I'm not
sure
> what's available, but if a list is provided, I can also point to
some
> fields I'd be interested in looking at as well. Thanks
>
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 10:31 AM Edward Strobach - NOAA Affiliate <
> edward.strobach at noaa.gov> wrote:
>
>> Hi Barbara and Alice,
>>
>> I've finished the analysis of the volcanic plume for different
members
>> using the mass concentration field. Several more ideas came to
light as I
>> started digging in. I have all the methods laid out in the slides
as well,
>> which reference the slides where the approach was employed. I
believe
>> several of these approaches proved useful; at least one approach,
however,
>> was purely experimental. Given that I can group points within
contours, I
>> think the next step will be to expand this analysis by grouping
indices for
>> relevant fields, and examine, for example, joint probability
>> distributions. It would be great to have additional information
such as
>> 3-D winds, temperature, and humidity, deposition, PBL height, TKE,
etc. I
>> hope you find this useful. Let me know if you have any questions.
>> Thanks.
>>
>> *FYI, since there are animated .gif files, you will have to
download the
>> powerpoint and view it in slideshow mode*
>>
>> Volcanic_Plume_Analysis.pptx
>>
<https://drive.google.com/a/noaa.gov/file/d/10YvUoWzB6WS_nowB1ukaywItqOkyn0Nl/view?usp=drive_web>
>>
>> --
>> Edward Strobach
>> EMC/NCEP/NWS/
>> IMSG Contractor
>> Cubicle#: 2029
>> 301-683-3717
>>
>
>
> --
> Edward Strobach
> EMC/NCEP/NWS/
> IMSG Contractor
> Cubicle#: 2029
> 301-683-3717
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: database and model
From: binyu.wang at noaa.gov
Time: Tue Jul 21 15:09:50 2020
Hello,
Thank you, John. Yes you are correct,I found the two "models".
Binyu
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 4:29 PM John Halley Gotway via RT
<met_help at ucar.edu>
wrote:
> Binyu,
>
> I'm not seeing the behavior in METvieewr you describe. I've attached
2
> screenshots from METviewer showing the both models appear under the
MODEL
> list for the Hist and Series templates. So the models listed look
> consistent across the 2 templates.
>
> If you launch METviewer during the load process, your browser will
cache
> the values... for example the list of MODEL values. And rather than
seeing
> the complete list, you may see the cached, incomplete list. Please
try
> holding down the shift and ctrl buttons while clicking the refresh
button
> to clear the browser cache.
>
> Regarding the second question, the answer is yes and no. If you run
> grid_stat twice, once with 50 stations and a second time with 50
more
> stations, grid_stat will write 2 sets of output. For example, you'll
have 2
> RMSE statistics in the CNT line type, and you'll have 2 SL1L2 output
lines.
> In METviewer, you can plot the mean of daily RMSE statistics or plot
the
> aggregated RMSE value. The mean of 2 RMSE values will not, in
general, be
> the same as the single RMSE value from 100 stations. However, the
> aggregated RMSE value (computed from aggregated SL1L2 lines) will be
the
> same as the single RMSE value from the 100 stations.
>
> Hope that helps clarify.
>
> John
>
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 11:59 AM binyu.wang at noaa.gov via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > Tue Jul 21 11:59:46 2020: Request 95969 was acted upon.
> > Transaction: Ticket created by binyu.wang at noaa.gov
> > Queue: met_help
> > Subject: database and model
> > Owner: Nobody
> > Requestors: binyu.wang at noaa.gov
> > Status: new
> > Ticket <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=95969 >
> >
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > This is Binyu Wang from EMC and I have two questions about the
database
> and
> > model.
> >
> > 1. I have two models: Raikoke and Raikoke_31.1p0, after I run the
> ensemble
> > verification, I put the "ensemble*stat" and "grid*stat" outputs
from
> both
> > models under the same directory:
> >
/gpfs/dell2/emc/modeling/noscrub/Binyu.Wang/MET/stat/met_Raikoke_stat.
> They
> > are also under same database: mv_g2g_met_verf_Raikoke
> >
> > When I tried to make plot using METViewer, under database
> > " mv_g2g_met_verf_Raikoke", both of model appears under MODEL for
Hist
> > plot, so I can choose which one I want, but there is no such
option for
> > "Series" plot. Does that mean all plots under "Series" include
both
> > "Raikoke" and "Raikoke_31.1p0"?
> >
> > 2.
> > I am doing ensemble verification (gefs) using ensemble_stat and
grid_stat
> > utilities;
> > I am wondering if there is any difference between the two
operations
> below?
> > (assuming I have 100 sites overall):
> >
> > a. I do verification using all the 100 sites .
> > %ensemble_stat ensemble_file_list $CONFIG_FILE -grid_obs
> > OBSV_FILE-100sites
> >
> > b.I first do verification using ONLY 50 sites, and then repeat the
same
> > operation using another 50 sites. And I put all the ensemble_stat
and
> > grid_stat output (the output from the first-50-run and second-50-
run will
> > have different names) into the same directory.
> >
> > %ensemble_stat ensemble_file_list $CONFIG_FILE -grid_obs
> > OBSV_FILE-50sites
> > %ensemble_stat ensemble_file_list $CONFIG_FILE -grid_obs
> > OBSV_FILE-another_50sites
> > If I upload all the output into METViewer database,, will I get
> > different plots from the 2 operations above
> >
> > Thank you.
> > Binyu
> >
> > Good afternoon,
> >
> > I was wondering if anyone would be able to tar up some more data
for that
> > case other than the number concentration. I wouldn't mind looking
at
> some
> > additional fields that you all think would be relevant. I'm not
sure
> > what's available, but if a list is provided, I can also point to
some
> > fields I'd be interested in looking at as well. Thanks
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 10:31 AM Edward Strobach - NOAA Affiliate <
> > edward.strobach at noaa.gov> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Barbara and Alice,
> > >
> > > I've finished the analysis of the volcanic plume for different
members
> > > using the mass concentration field. Several more ideas came to
light
> as
> > I
> > > started digging in. I have all the methods laid out in the
slides as
> > well,
> > > which reference the slides where the approach was employed. I
believe
> > > several of these approaches proved useful; at least one
approach,
> > however,
> > > was purely experimental. Given that I can group points within
> contours,
> > I
> > > think the next step will be to expand this analysis by grouping
indices
> > for
> > > relevant fields, and examine, for example, joint probability
> > > distributions. It would be great to have additional information
such
> as
> > > 3-D winds, temperature, and humidity, deposition, PBL height,
TKE, etc.
> > I
> > > hope you find this useful. Let me know if you have any
questions.
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > *FYI, since there are animated .gif files, you will have to
download
> the
> > > powerpoint and view it in slideshow mode*
> > >
> > > Volcanic_Plume_Analysis.pptx
> > > <
> >
>
https://drive.google.com/a/noaa.gov/file/d/10YvUoWzB6WS_nowB1ukaywItqOkyn0Nl/view?usp=drive_web
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Edward Strobach
> > > EMC/NCEP/NWS/
> > > IMSG Contractor
> > > Cubicle#: 2029
> > > 301-683-3717
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Edward Strobach
> > EMC/NCEP/NWS/
> > IMSG Contractor
> > Cubicle#: 2029
> > 301-683-3717
> > Good afternoon,
> >
> > I was wondering if anyone would be able to tar up some more data
for that
> > case other than the number concentration. I wouldn't mind looking
at
> some
> > additional fields that you all think would be relevant. I'm not
sure
> > what's available, but if a list is provided, I can also point to
some
> > fields I'd be interested in looking at as well. Thanks
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 10:31 AM Edward Strobach - NOAA Affiliate <
> > edward.strobach at noaa.gov> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Barbara and Alice,
> >>
> >> I've finished the analysis of the volcanic plume for different
members
> >> using the mass concentration field. Several more ideas came to
light
> as I
> >> started digging in. I have all the methods laid out in the
slides as
> well,
> >> which reference the slides where the approach was employed. I
believe
> >> several of these approaches proved useful; at least one approach,
> however,
> >> was purely experimental. Given that I can group points within
> contours, I
> >> think the next step will be to expand this analysis by grouping
indices
> for
> >> relevant fields, and examine, for example, joint probability
> >> distributions. It would be great to have additional information
such as
> >> 3-D winds, temperature, and humidity, deposition, PBL height,
TKE,
> etc. I
> >> hope you find this useful. Let me know if you have any
questions.
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> *FYI, since there are animated .gif files, you will have to
download the
> >> powerpoint and view it in slideshow mode*
> >>
> >> Volcanic_Plume_Analysis.pptx
> >> <
>
https://drive.google.com/a/noaa.gov/file/d/10YvUoWzB6WS_nowB1ukaywItqOkyn0Nl/view?usp=drive_web
> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> Edward Strobach
> >> EMC/NCEP/NWS/
> >> IMSG Contractor
> >> Cubicle#: 2029
> >> 301-683-3717
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Edward Strobach
> > EMC/NCEP/NWS/
> > IMSG Contractor
> > Cubicle#: 2029
> > 301-683-3717
> >
>
>
------------------------------------------------
More information about the Met_help
mailing list