[Met_help] [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] History for Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
John Halley Gotway via RT
met_help at ucar.edu
Thu Sep 24 12:54:18 MDT 2020
----------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Request
----------------------------------------------------------------
John, I am exploring using the TP06 field in Prepbufr data for 6hour precip. When I run point stat using TP06 for ob name and A6 for level, met rejects them for ob type. What do people typically use for TP06. I will send a prepbufr file to you tomorrow that I am using. Any idea what might be wrong?
Thanks
Bob
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------
Complete Ticket History
----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
From: John Halley Gotway
Time: Tue Sep 15 16:06:10 2020
Bob,
Nothing immediately jumps out at me as an obvious problem. There's
really
multiple steps occurring here:
(1) Configure/run pb2nc and retain TP06 observations.
(2) Configure/run point_stat to verify against those observations.
I'd recommend making sure that (1) works as expected. You could do so,
but
running plot_point_obs on the output from pb2nc. Use the "-obs_var
TP06"
command line option to only process observations of that type. If
there are
red dots in the output postscript image, then you know you
successfully
retained them. If not, then you need to work on the PB2NC
configuration.
Once you know (1) is working, run (2). I don't know what
"message_type" is
used for TP06 observations. So we'll need to figure that out and
request
that message type in the Point-Stat config file.
Please let me know how it goes.
Thanks,
John
On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 3:18 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> Tue Sep 15 15:18:49 2020: Request 96729 was acted upon.
> Transaction: Ticket created by robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> Queue: met_help
> Subject: Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> Owner: Nobody
> Requestors: robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> Status: new
> Ticket <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
>
>
> John, I am exploring using the TP06 field in Prepbufr data for 6hour
> precip. When I run point stat using TP06 for ob name and A6 for
level,
> met rejects them for ob type. What do people typically use for
TP06. I
> will send a prepbufr file to you tomorrow that I am using. Any idea
what
> might be wrong?
>
> Thanks
> Bob
> Bob
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
From: robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
Time: Thu Sep 17 13:50:28 2020
John, I was able to plot the data in plot_point_obs so the data is
there. Digging in to the NETCDF file which contains the data, I see
there are three message types (ADPSFC,ADPUPR, SFCSHP). In my config
file (attached) I leave the message type field empty which I thought
means use them all. Using ncdump to peer into the file, I can see
where in the variable TP06 is in the file (variable number 14). I
sent the netcdf file via DODSAFE. Any other things I should check?
Thanks
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 5:06 PM
To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
<robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of TP06
field in Prepbufr data
Bob,
Nothing immediately jumps out at me as an obvious problem. There's
really multiple steps occurring here:
(1) Configure/run pb2nc and retain TP06 observations.
(2) Configure/run point_stat to verify against those observations.
I'd recommend making sure that (1) works as expected. You could do so,
but running plot_point_obs on the output from pb2nc. Use the "-obs_var
TP06"
command line option to only process observations of that type. If
there are red dots in the output postscript image, then you know you
successfully retained them. If not, then you need to work on the PB2NC
configuration.
Once you know (1) is working, run (2). I don't know what
"message_type" is used for TP06 observations. So we'll need to figure
that out and request that message type in the Point-Stat config file.
Please let me know how it goes.
Thanks,
John
On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 3:18 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> Tue Sep 15 15:18:49 2020: Request 96729 was acted upon.
> Transaction: Ticket created by robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> Queue: met_help
> Subject: Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> Owner: Nobody
> Requestors: robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> Status: new
> Ticket <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> >
>
>
> John, I am exploring using the TP06 field in Prepbufr data for 6hour
> precip. When I run point stat using TP06 for ob name and A6 for
level,
> met rejects them for ob type. What do people typically use for
TP06.
> I will send a prepbufr file to you tomorrow that I am using. Any
idea
> what might be wrong?
>
> Thanks
> Bob
> Bob
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
From: John Halley Gotway
Time: Thu Sep 17 16:26:01 2020
Bob,
I didn't see a DODSAFE message come through, and I'll be out of the
office
tomorrow.
In your Point-Stat config file, I see that you're verifying against
observations of type "ADPSFC":
obs = {
convert(x) = x/100.0;
message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
...
}
So we just need to figure out if the PTYPE obs have that message type.
Run plot_point_obs using the "-obs_var TP06 -msg_typ ADPSFC" options.
If
there we get some red dots on the output, then we've got the correct
message type. If not, you'll need to figure out the message type used
for
TP06 obs and request that in the Point-Stat configuration file
instead.
When you run Point-Stat be sure to continue using the "-v 3" option to
dump
out counts of reason codes for why observations were or were not used
in
the verification.
John
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 1:51 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
>
> John, I was able to plot the data in plot_point_obs so the data is
there.
> Digging in to the NETCDF file which contains the data, I see there
are
> three message types (ADPSFC,ADPUPR, SFCSHP). In my config file
(attached)
> I leave the message type field empty which I thought means use them
all.
> Using ncdump to peer into the file, I can see where in the variable
TP06
> is in the file (variable number 14). I sent the netcdf file via
DODSAFE.
> Any other things I should check?
>
> Thanks
> Bob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 5:06 PM
> To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
<robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of TP06
field
> in Prepbufr data
>
> Bob,
>
> Nothing immediately jumps out at me as an obvious problem. There's
really
> multiple steps occurring here:
> (1) Configure/run pb2nc and retain TP06 observations.
> (2) Configure/run point_stat to verify against those observations.
>
> I'd recommend making sure that (1) works as expected. You could do
so, but
> running plot_point_obs on the output from pb2nc. Use the "-obs_var
TP06"
> command line option to only process observations of that type. If
there
> are red dots in the output postscript image, then you know you
successfully
> retained them. If not, then you need to work on the PB2NC
configuration.
>
> Once you know (1) is working, run (2). I don't know what
"message_type" is
> used for TP06 observations. So we'll need to figure that out and
request
> that message type in the Point-Stat config file.
>
> Please let me know how it goes.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 3:18 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > Tue Sep 15 15:18:49 2020: Request 96729 was acted upon.
> > Transaction: Ticket created by robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > Queue: met_help
> > Subject: Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > Owner: Nobody
> > Requestors: robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > Status: new
> > Ticket <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > >
> >
> >
> > John, I am exploring using the TP06 field in Prepbufr data for
6hour
> > precip. When I run point stat using TP06 for ob name and A6 for
level,
> > met rejects them for ob type. What do people typically use for
TP06.
> > I will send a prepbufr file to you tomorrow that I am using. Any
idea
> > what might be wrong?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Bob
> > Bob
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
From: robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
Time: Fri Sep 18 09:27:57 2020
John, Both the ADPSFC and SFCSHP have TP06 obs. The obs are being
rejected due to obs type not message type. I will see what happened
to the DODsafe file. Hopefully I will know more by Monday.
Bob
________________________________
From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 5:26 PM
To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
<robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of TP06
field in Prepbufr data
Bob,
I didn't see a DODSAFE message come through, and I'll be out of the
office
tomorrow.
In your Point-Stat config file, I see that you're verifying against
observations of type "ADPSFC":
obs = {
convert(x) = x/100.0;
message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
...
}
So we just need to figure out if the PTYPE obs have that message type.
Run plot_point_obs using the "-obs_var TP06 -msg_typ ADPSFC" options.
If
there we get some red dots on the output, then we've got the correct
message type. If not, you'll need to figure out the message type used
for
TP06 obs and request that in the Point-Stat configuration file
instead.
When you run Point-Stat be sure to continue using the "-v 3" option to
dump
out counts of reason codes for why observations were or were not used
in
the verification.
John
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 1:51 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
>
> John, I was able to plot the data in plot_point_obs so the data is
there.
> Digging in to the NETCDF file which contains the data, I see there
are
> three message types (ADPSFC,ADPUPR, SFCSHP). In my config file
(attached)
> I leave the message type field empty which I thought means use them
all.
> Using ncdump to peer into the file, I can see where in the variable
TP06
> is in the file (variable number 14). I sent the netcdf file via
DODSAFE.
> Any other things I should check?
>
> Thanks
> Bob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 5:06 PM
> To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
<robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of TP06
field
> in Prepbufr data
>
> Bob,
>
> Nothing immediately jumps out at me as an obvious problem. There's
really
> multiple steps occurring here:
> (1) Configure/run pb2nc and retain TP06 observations.
> (2) Configure/run point_stat to verify against those observations.
>
> I'd recommend making sure that (1) works as expected. You could do
so, but
> running plot_point_obs on the output from pb2nc. Use the "-obs_var
TP06"
> command line option to only process observations of that type. If
there
> are red dots in the output postscript image, then you know you
successfully
> retained them. If not, then you need to work on the PB2NC
configuration.
>
> Once you know (1) is working, run (2). I don't know what
"message_type" is
> used for TP06 observations. So we'll need to figure that out and
request
> that message type in the Point-Stat config file.
>
> Please let me know how it goes.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 3:18 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > Tue Sep 15 15:18:49 2020: Request 96729 was acted upon.
> > Transaction: Ticket created by robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > Queue: met_help
> > Subject: Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > Owner: Nobody
> > Requestors: robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > Status: new
> > Ticket <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > >
> >
> >
> > John, I am exploring using the TP06 field in Prepbufr data for
6hour
> > precip. When I run point stat using TP06 for ob name and A6 for
level,
> > met rejects them for ob type. What do people typically use for
TP06.
> > I will send a prepbufr file to you tomorrow that I am using. Any
idea
> > what might be wrong?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Bob
> > Bob
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
From: John Halley Gotway
Time: Fri Sep 18 10:22:30 2020
Bob,
Ah OK. I'm looking more closely at your Point-Stat config file.
You'll probably need to change:
FROM:
obs = {
convert(x) = x/100.0;
message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
sid_exc = [];
field = [
{ name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => .01;},
{ name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => .10;},
{ name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => .25;},
{ name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => .50;},
{ name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => 1.0;}
];
}
TO:
obs = {
convert(x) = x/100.0;
message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
sid_exc = [];
field = [
{ name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >.01;},
{ name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >.10;},
{ name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >.25;},
{ name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >.50;},
{ name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >1.0;}
];
}
There are 2 small changes there. Replacing "A6" with "L0" and getting
rid
of white-space between the ">" and the threshold value. The point
observations do not include a way of indicating an "accumulation
interval".
I suspect that's why it's embedded in the variable name, where TP06
means
6-hourly total precip.
Please let me know if that produces better results.
Thanks,
John
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 9:28 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
>
> John, Both the ADPSFC and SFCSHP have TP06 obs. The obs are being
> rejected due to obs type not message type. I will see what happened
to the
> DODsafe file. Hopefully I will know more by Monday.
>
> Bob
>
> ________________________________
> From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 5:26 PM
> To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
<robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of
TP06
> field in Prepbufr data
>
> Bob,
>
> I didn't see a DODSAFE message come through, and I'll be out of the
office
> tomorrow.
>
> In your Point-Stat config file, I see that you're verifying against
> observations of type "ADPSFC":
>
> obs = {
> convert(x) = x/100.0;
> message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> ...
> }
>
> So we just need to figure out if the PTYPE obs have that message
type.
> Run plot_point_obs using the "-obs_var TP06 -msg_typ ADPSFC"
options. If
> there we get some red dots on the output, then we've got the correct
> message type. If not, you'll need to figure out the message type
used for
> TP06 obs and request that in the Point-Stat configuration file
instead.
>
> When you run Point-Stat be sure to continue using the "-v 3" option
to dump
> out counts of reason codes for why observations were or were not
used in
> the verification.
>
> John
>
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 1:51 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
> >
> > John, I was able to plot the data in plot_point_obs so the data is
there.
> > Digging in to the NETCDF file which contains the data, I see there
are
> > three message types (ADPSFC,ADPUPR, SFCSHP). In my config file
> (attached)
> > I leave the message type field empty which I thought means use
them all.
> > Using ncdump to peer into the file, I can see where in the
variable TP06
> > is in the file (variable number 14). I sent the netcdf file via
DODSAFE.
> > Any other things I should check?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Bob
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 5:06 PM
> > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
<robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of TP06
field
> > in Prepbufr data
> >
> > Bob,
> >
> > Nothing immediately jumps out at me as an obvious problem. There's
really
> > multiple steps occurring here:
> > (1) Configure/run pb2nc and retain TP06 observations.
> > (2) Configure/run point_stat to verify against those observations.
> >
> > I'd recommend making sure that (1) works as expected. You could do
so,
> but
> > running plot_point_obs on the output from pb2nc. Use the "-obs_var
TP06"
> > command line option to only process observations of that type. If
there
> > are red dots in the output postscript image, then you know you
> successfully
> > retained them. If not, then you need to work on the PB2NC
configuration.
> >
> > Once you know (1) is working, run (2). I don't know what
"message_type"
> is
> > used for TP06 observations. So we'll need to figure that out and
request
> > that message type in the Point-Stat config file.
> >
> > Please let me know how it goes.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > John
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 3:18 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Tue Sep 15 15:18:49 2020: Request 96729 was acted upon.
> > > Transaction: Ticket created by robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > Queue: met_help
> > > Subject: Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > Owner: Nobody
> > > Requestors: robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > Status: new
> > > Ticket <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > John, I am exploring using the TP06 field in Prepbufr data for
6hour
> > > precip. When I run point stat using TP06 for ob name and A6
for
> level,
> > > met rejects them for ob type. What do people typically use for
TP06.
> > > I will send a prepbufr file to you tomorrow that I am using.
Any idea
> > > what might be wrong?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Bob
> > > Bob
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
From: robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
Time: Fri Sep 18 11:10:05 2020
No, still rejecting on obs. Hopefully I can get you the netcdf ob
file on Monday. I will also send the config file I use for PB2NC to
see if there are any setting in there not quite right.
Thanks
Bob
________________________________
From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 11:22 AM
To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
<robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of TP06
field in Prepbufr data
Bob,
Ah OK. I'm looking more closely at your Point-Stat config file.
You'll probably need to change:
FROM:
obs = {
convert(x) = x/100.0;
message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
sid_exc = [];
field = [
{ name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => .01;},
{ name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => .10;},
{ name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => .25;},
{ name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => .50;},
{ name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => 1.0;}
];
}
TO:
obs = {
convert(x) = x/100.0;
message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
sid_exc = [];
field = [
{ name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >.01;},
{ name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >.10;},
{ name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >.25;},
{ name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >.50;},
{ name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >1.0;}
];
}
There are 2 small changes there. Replacing "A6" with "L0" and getting
rid
of white-space between the ">" and the threshold value. The point
observations do not include a way of indicating an "accumulation
interval".
I suspect that's why it's embedded in the variable name, where TP06
means
6-hourly total precip.
Please let me know if that produces better results.
Thanks,
John
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 9:28 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
>
> John, Both the ADPSFC and SFCSHP have TP06 obs. The obs are being
> rejected due to obs type not message type. I will see what happened
to the
> DODsafe file. Hopefully I will know more by Monday.
>
> Bob
>
> ________________________________
> From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 5:26 PM
> To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
<robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of
TP06
> field in Prepbufr data
>
> Bob,
>
> I didn't see a DODSAFE message come through, and I'll be out of the
office
> tomorrow.
>
> In your Point-Stat config file, I see that you're verifying against
> observations of type "ADPSFC":
>
> obs = {
> convert(x) = x/100.0;
> message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> ...
> }
>
> So we just need to figure out if the PTYPE obs have that message
type.
> Run plot_point_obs using the "-obs_var TP06 -msg_typ ADPSFC"
options. If
> there we get some red dots on the output, then we've got the correct
> message type. If not, you'll need to figure out the message type
used for
> TP06 obs and request that in the Point-Stat configuration file
instead.
>
> When you run Point-Stat be sure to continue using the "-v 3" option
to dump
> out counts of reason codes for why observations were or were not
used in
> the verification.
>
> John
>
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 1:51 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
> >
> > John, I was able to plot the data in plot_point_obs so the data is
there.
> > Digging in to the NETCDF file which contains the data, I see there
are
> > three message types (ADPSFC,ADPUPR, SFCSHP). In my config file
> (attached)
> > I leave the message type field empty which I thought means use
them all.
> > Using ncdump to peer into the file, I can see where in the
variable TP06
> > is in the file (variable number 14). I sent the netcdf file via
DODSAFE.
> > Any other things I should check?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Bob
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 5:06 PM
> > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
<robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of TP06
field
> > in Prepbufr data
> >
> > Bob,
> >
> > Nothing immediately jumps out at me as an obvious problem. There's
really
> > multiple steps occurring here:
> > (1) Configure/run pb2nc and retain TP06 observations.
> > (2) Configure/run point_stat to verify against those observations.
> >
> > I'd recommend making sure that (1) works as expected. You could do
so,
> but
> > running plot_point_obs on the output from pb2nc. Use the "-obs_var
TP06"
> > command line option to only process observations of that type. If
there
> > are red dots in the output postscript image, then you know you
> successfully
> > retained them. If not, then you need to work on the PB2NC
configuration.
> >
> > Once you know (1) is working, run (2). I don't know what
"message_type"
> is
> > used for TP06 observations. So we'll need to figure that out and
request
> > that message type in the Point-Stat config file.
> >
> > Please let me know how it goes.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > John
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 3:18 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Tue Sep 15 15:18:49 2020: Request 96729 was acted upon.
> > > Transaction: Ticket created by robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > Queue: met_help
> > > Subject: Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > Owner: Nobody
> > > Requestors: robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > Status: new
> > > Ticket <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > John, I am exploring using the TP06 field in Prepbufr data for
6hour
> > > precip. When I run point stat using TP06 for ob name and A6
for
> level,
> > > met rejects them for ob type. What do people typically use for
TP06.
> > > I will send a prepbufr file to you tomorrow that I am using.
Any idea
> > > what might be wrong?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Bob
> > > Bob
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
From: John Halley Gotway
Time: Tue Sep 22 09:56:49 2020
Bob,
Sorry for the delay. Yes, I pulled the 2020080612.nc file. I do not
have
the file with your forecast probabilities.
So I just grabbed a sample Short-Range Ensemble Forecast data file
from
NOAA/EMC with which to test:
https://nomads.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/data/nccf/com/sref/prod/sref.20200920/09/ensprod/sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2
I have a couple of meetings this morning but will work on setting up
an
example and get back to you later today.
Thanks,
John
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 11:10 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
>
> No, still rejecting on obs. Hopefully I can get you the netcdf ob
file on
> Monday. I will also send the config file I use for PB2NC to see if
there
> are any setting in there not quite right.
>
> Thanks
> Bob
>
> ________________________________
> From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 11:22 AM
> To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
<robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of
TP06
> field in Prepbufr data
>
> Bob,
>
> Ah OK. I'm looking more closely at your Point-Stat config file.
>
> You'll probably need to change:
>
> FROM:
> obs = {
> convert(x) = x/100.0;
> message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> sid_exc = [];
> field = [
> { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => .01;},
> { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => .10;},
> { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => .25;},
> { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => .50;},
> { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => 1.0;}
> ];
> }
> TO:
> obs = {
> convert(x) = x/100.0;
> message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> sid_exc = [];
> field = [
> { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >.01;},
> { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >.10;},
> { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >.25;},
> { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >.50;},
> { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >1.0;}
> ];
> }
>
> There are 2 small changes there. Replacing "A6" with "L0" and
getting rid
> of white-space between the ">" and the threshold value. The point
> observations do not include a way of indicating an "accumulation
interval".
> I suspect that's why it's embedded in the variable name, where TP06
means
> 6-hourly total precip.
>
> Please let me know if that produces better results.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 9:28 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
> >
> > John, Both the ADPSFC and SFCSHP have TP06 obs. The obs are being
> > rejected due to obs type not message type. I will see what
happened to
> the
> > DODsafe file. Hopefully I will know more by Monday.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 5:26 PM
> > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
<robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of
TP06
> > field in Prepbufr data
> >
> > Bob,
> >
> > I didn't see a DODSAFE message come through, and I'll be out of
the
> office
> > tomorrow.
> >
> > In your Point-Stat config file, I see that you're verifying
against
> > observations of type "ADPSFC":
> >
> > obs = {
> > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> > ...
> > }
> >
> > So we just need to figure out if the PTYPE obs have that message
type.
> > Run plot_point_obs using the "-obs_var TP06 -msg_typ ADPSFC"
options. If
> > there we get some red dots on the output, then we've got the
correct
> > message type. If not, you'll need to figure out the message type
used for
> > TP06 obs and request that in the Point-Stat configuration file
instead.
> >
> > When you run Point-Stat be sure to continue using the "-v 3"
option to
> dump
> > out counts of reason codes for why observations were or were not
used in
> > the verification.
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 1:51 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
> > >
> > > John, I was able to plot the data in plot_point_obs so the data
is
> there.
> > > Digging in to the NETCDF file which contains the data, I see
there are
> > > three message types (ADPSFC,ADPUPR, SFCSHP). In my config file
> > (attached)
> > > I leave the message type field empty which I thought means use
them
> all.
> > > Using ncdump to peer into the file, I can see where in the
variable
> TP06
> > > is in the file (variable number 14). I sent the netcdf file via
> DODSAFE.
> > > Any other things I should check?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Bob
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 5:06 PM
> > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
<robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> >
> > > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of
TP06
> field
> > > in Prepbufr data
> > >
> > > Bob,
> > >
> > > Nothing immediately jumps out at me as an obvious problem.
There's
> really
> > > multiple steps occurring here:
> > > (1) Configure/run pb2nc and retain TP06 observations.
> > > (2) Configure/run point_stat to verify against those
observations.
> > >
> > > I'd recommend making sure that (1) works as expected. You could
do so,
> > but
> > > running plot_point_obs on the output from pb2nc. Use the "-
obs_var
> TP06"
> > > command line option to only process observations of that type.
If there
> > > are red dots in the output postscript image, then you know you
> > successfully
> > > retained them. If not, then you need to work on the PB2NC
> configuration.
> > >
> > > Once you know (1) is working, run (2). I don't know what
"message_type"
> > is
> > > used for TP06 observations. So we'll need to figure that out and
> request
> > > that message type in the Point-Stat config file.
> > >
> > > Please let me know how it goes.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > John
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 3:18 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT
<
> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Tue Sep 15 15:18:49 2020: Request 96729 was acted upon.
> > > > Transaction: Ticket created by robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > Queue: met_help
> > > > Subject: Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > Owner: Nobody
> > > > Requestors: robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > Status: new
> > > > Ticket <URL:
> https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > John, I am exploring using the TP06 field in Prepbufr data for
6hour
> > > > precip. When I run point stat using TP06 for ob name and A6
for
> > level,
> > > > met rejects them for ob type. What do people typically use
for TP06.
> > > > I will send a prepbufr file to you tomorrow that I am using.
Any
> idea
> > > > what might be wrong?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Bob
> > > > Bob
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
From: robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
Time: Tue Sep 22 10:00:25 2020
Sounds good.
Thanks
-----Original Message-----
From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 10:57 AM
To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
<robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of TP06
field in Prepbufr data
Bob,
Sorry for the delay. Yes, I pulled the 2020080612.nc file. I do not
have the file with your forecast probabilities.
So I just grabbed a sample Short-Range Ensemble Forecast data file
from NOAA/EMC with which to test:
https://nomads.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/data/nccf/com/sref/prod/sref.20200920/09/ensprod/sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2
I have a couple of meetings this morning but will work on setting up
an example and get back to you later today.
Thanks,
John
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 11:10 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
>
> No, still rejecting on obs. Hopefully I can get you the netcdf ob
> file on Monday. I will also send the config file I use for PB2NC to
> see if there are any setting in there not quite right.
>
> Thanks
> Bob
>
> ________________________________
> From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 11:22 AM
> To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of
TP06
> field in Prepbufr data
>
> Bob,
>
> Ah OK. I'm looking more closely at your Point-Stat config file.
>
> You'll probably need to change:
>
> FROM:
> obs = {
> convert(x) = x/100.0;
> message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> sid_exc = [];
> field = [
> { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => .01;},
> { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => .10;},
> { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => .25;},
> { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => .50;},
> { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => 1.0;}
> ];
> }
> TO:
> obs = {
> convert(x) = x/100.0;
> message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> sid_exc = [];
> field = [
> { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >.01;},
> { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >.10;},
> { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >.25;},
> { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >.50;},
> { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >1.0;}
> ];
> }
>
> There are 2 small changes there. Replacing "A6" with "L0" and
getting
> rid of white-space between the ">" and the threshold value. The
point
> observations do not include a way of indicating an "accumulation
interval".
> I suspect that's why it's embedded in the variable name, where TP06
> means 6-hourly total precip.
>
> Please let me know if that produces better results.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 9:28 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
> >
> > John, Both the ADPSFC and SFCSHP have TP06 obs. The obs are being
> > rejected due to obs type not message type. I will see what
happened
> > to
> the
> > DODsafe file. Hopefully I will know more by Monday.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 5:26 PM
> > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of
> > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> >
> > Bob,
> >
> > I didn't see a DODSAFE message come through, and I'll be out of
the
> office
> > tomorrow.
> >
> > In your Point-Stat config file, I see that you're verifying
against
> > observations of type "ADPSFC":
> >
> > obs = {
> > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> > ...
> > }
> >
> > So we just need to figure out if the PTYPE obs have that message
type.
> > Run plot_point_obs using the "-obs_var TP06 -msg_typ ADPSFC"
> > options. If there we get some red dots on the output, then we've
got
> > the correct message type. If not, you'll need to figure out the
> > message type used for
> > TP06 obs and request that in the Point-Stat configuration file
instead.
> >
> > When you run Point-Stat be sure to continue using the "-v 3"
option
> > to
> dump
> > out counts of reason codes for why observations were or were not
> > used in the verification.
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 1:51 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
> > >
> > > John, I was able to plot the data in plot_point_obs so the data
is
> there.
> > > Digging in to the NETCDF file which contains the data, I see
there
> > > are three message types (ADPSFC,ADPUPR, SFCSHP). In my config
> > > file
> > (attached)
> > > I leave the message type field empty which I thought means use
> > > them
> all.
> > > Using ncdump to peer into the file, I can see where in the
> > > variable
> TP06
> > > is in the file (variable number 14). I sent the netcdf file via
> DODSAFE.
> > > Any other things I should check?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Bob
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 5:06 PM
> > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> >
> > > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of
TP06
> field
> > > in Prepbufr data
> > >
> > > Bob,
> > >
> > > Nothing immediately jumps out at me as an obvious problem.
There's
> really
> > > multiple steps occurring here:
> > > (1) Configure/run pb2nc and retain TP06 observations.
> > > (2) Configure/run point_stat to verify against those
observations.
> > >
> > > I'd recommend making sure that (1) works as expected. You could
do
> > > so,
> > but
> > > running plot_point_obs on the output from pb2nc. Use the "-
obs_var
> TP06"
> > > command line option to only process observations of that type.
If
> > > there are red dots in the output postscript image, then you know
> > > you
> > successfully
> > > retained them. If not, then you need to work on the PB2NC
> configuration.
> > >
> > > Once you know (1) is working, run (2). I don't know what
"message_type"
> > is
> > > used for TP06 observations. So we'll need to figure that out and
> request
> > > that message type in the Point-Stat config file.
> > >
> > > Please let me know how it goes.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > John
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 3:18 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT
<
> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Tue Sep 15 15:18:49 2020: Request 96729 was acted upon.
> > > > Transaction: Ticket created by robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > Queue: met_help
> > > > Subject: Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > Owner: Nobody
> > > > Requestors: robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > Status: new
> > > > Ticket <URL:
> https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > John, I am exploring using the TP06 field in Prepbufr data for
6hour
> > > > precip. When I run point stat using TP06 for ob name and A6
for
> > level,
> > > > met rejects them for ob type. What do people typically use
for TP06.
> > > > I will send a prepbufr file to you tomorrow that I am using.
> > > > Any
> idea
> > > > what might be wrong?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Bob
> > > > Bob
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
From: John Halley Gotway
Time: Tue Sep 22 13:23:55 2020
Bob,
OK, I was successful in getting matched pairs when comparing SREF
probabilities to the point observations you sent to me.
Here's how I tested:
- Pulled a sample SREF file from
https://nomads.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/data/nccf/com/sref/prod/sref.20200920/09/ensprod/sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2
- Ran point_stat like this:
/Volumes/d1/projects/MET/MET_development/MET-
main_v9.1/met/bin/point_stat \
sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2 2020080612.nc PointStatConfig_sref
\
-outdir out -v 3
Using the attached config file.
And I see the following matching counts in the log messages:
DEBUG 2: Processing PROB(APCP_06>6.350)/A06/PROB versus TP06/L0, for
observation type ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method
NEAREST(1), using 5630 matched pairs.
DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 5630
DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 783635
DEBUG 3: Rejected: station id = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 774152
DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 3853
DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
...
My config file has several changes:
- Different way of pulling forecast probabilities, specifying "prob"
as a
dictionary instead of a boolean.
- In the "obs" dictionary, I changed "level" from "A6" to "L0".
- In the "obs" dictionary, I changed the "cat_thresh" to be consistent
with
the forecast probabilities.
- I disabled the "climo_mean" entry since I don't have your data.
- I added a few 0's to the "obs_window" setting since the forecast
valid
time doesn't match the time of the point observations.
Anything in there that might help?
Thanks,
John
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 10:00 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
>
> Sounds good.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 10:57 AM
> To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
<robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of
TP06
> field in Prepbufr data
>
> Bob,
>
> Sorry for the delay. Yes, I pulled the 2020080612.nc file. I do not
have
> the file with your forecast probabilities.
> So I just grabbed a sample Short-Range Ensemble Forecast data file
from
> NOAA/EMC with which to test:
>
>
>
https://nomads.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/data/nccf/com/sref/prod/sref.20200920/09/ensprod/sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2
>
> I have a couple of meetings this morning but will work on setting up
an
> example and get back to you later today.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 11:10 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
> >
> > No, still rejecting on obs. Hopefully I can get you the netcdf ob
> > file on Monday. I will also send the config file I use for PB2NC
to
> > see if there are any setting in there not quite right.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Bob
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 11:22 AM
> > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of
TP06
> > field in Prepbufr data
> >
> > Bob,
> >
> > Ah OK. I'm looking more closely at your Point-Stat config file.
> >
> > You'll probably need to change:
> >
> > FROM:
> > obs = {
> > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> > sid_exc = [];
> > field = [
> > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => .01;},
> > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => .10;},
> > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => .25;},
> > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => .50;},
> > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => 1.0;}
> > ];
> > }
> > TO:
> > obs = {
> > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> > sid_exc = [];
> > field = [
> > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >.01;},
> > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >.10;},
> > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >.25;},
> > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >.50;},
> > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >1.0;}
> > ];
> > }
> >
> > There are 2 small changes there. Replacing "A6" with "L0" and
getting
> > rid of white-space between the ">" and the threshold value. The
point
> > observations do not include a way of indicating an "accumulation
> interval".
> > I suspect that's why it's embedded in the variable name, where
TP06
> > means 6-hourly total precip.
> >
> > Please let me know if that produces better results.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > John
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 9:28 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
> > >
> > > John, Both the ADPSFC and SFCSHP have TP06 obs. The obs are
being
> > > rejected due to obs type not message type. I will see what
happened
> > > to
> > the
> > > DODsafe file. Hopefully I will know more by Monday.
> > >
> > > Bob
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 5:26 PM
> > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use
of
> > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > >
> > > Bob,
> > >
> > > I didn't see a DODSAFE message come through, and I'll be out of
the
> > office
> > > tomorrow.
> > >
> > > In your Point-Stat config file, I see that you're verifying
against
> > > observations of type "ADPSFC":
> > >
> > > obs = {
> > > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> > > ...
> > > }
> > >
> > > So we just need to figure out if the PTYPE obs have that message
type.
> > > Run plot_point_obs using the "-obs_var TP06 -msg_typ ADPSFC"
> > > options. If there we get some red dots on the output, then we've
got
> > > the correct message type. If not, you'll need to figure out the
> > > message type used for
> > > TP06 obs and request that in the Point-Stat configuration file
instead.
> > >
> > > When you run Point-Stat be sure to continue using the "-v 3"
option
> > > to
> > dump
> > > out counts of reason codes for why observations were or were not
> > > used in the verification.
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 1:51 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT
<
> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
>
> > > >
> > > > John, I was able to plot the data in plot_point_obs so the
data is
> > there.
> > > > Digging in to the NETCDF file which contains the data, I see
there
> > > > are three message types (ADPSFC,ADPUPR, SFCSHP). In my config
> > > > file
> > > (attached)
> > > > I leave the message type field empty which I thought means use
> > > > them
> > all.
> > > > Using ncdump to peer into the file, I can see where in the
> > > > variable
> > TP06
> > > > is in the file (variable number 14). I sent the netcdf file
via
> > DODSAFE.
> > > > Any other things I should check?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Bob
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 5:06 PM
> > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > >
> > > > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of
TP06
> > field
> > > > in Prepbufr data
> > > >
> > > > Bob,
> > > >
> > > > Nothing immediately jumps out at me as an obvious problem.
There's
> > really
> > > > multiple steps occurring here:
> > > > (1) Configure/run pb2nc and retain TP06 observations.
> > > > (2) Configure/run point_stat to verify against those
observations.
> > > >
> > > > I'd recommend making sure that (1) works as expected. You
could do
> > > > so,
> > > but
> > > > running plot_point_obs on the output from pb2nc. Use the "-
obs_var
> > TP06"
> > > > command line option to only process observations of that type.
If
> > > > there are red dots in the output postscript image, then you
know
> > > > you
> > > successfully
> > > > retained them. If not, then you need to work on the PB2NC
> > configuration.
> > > >
> > > > Once you know (1) is working, run (2). I don't know what
> "message_type"
> > > is
> > > > used for TP06 observations. So we'll need to figure that out
and
> > request
> > > > that message type in the Point-Stat config file.
> > > >
> > > > Please let me know how it goes.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 3:18 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via
RT <
> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Tue Sep 15 15:18:49 2020: Request 96729 was acted upon.
> > > > > Transaction: Ticket created by robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > Queue: met_help
> > > > > Subject: Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > > Owner: Nobody
> > > > > Requestors: robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > Status: new
> > > > > Ticket <URL:
> > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > John, I am exploring using the TP06 field in Prepbufr data
for
> 6hour
> > > > > precip. When I run point stat using TP06 for ob name and
A6 for
> > > level,
> > > > > met rejects them for ob type. What do people typically use
for
> TP06.
> > > > > I will send a prepbufr file to you tomorrow that I am using.
> > > > > Any
> > idea
> > > > > what might be wrong?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > Bob
> > > > > Bob
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
From: robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
Time: Tue Sep 22 14:50:44 2020
John,
I tried your changes but I could not get it to work. I am sending you
the probability file and the ob file. Our probability files differ
from SREF so this should be a closer comparison. I tried different
combinations of things in the met config file, even commenting out the
climo stuff but still no good. Up until now, we have been using our
own version of netcdf precip file and that works. But our data has
very few precip obs over Africa so we need to switch to using the
Prepbufr data for precip.
Thanks
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 2:24 PM
To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
<robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of TP06
field in Prepbufr data
Bob,
OK, I was successful in getting matched pairs when comparing SREF
probabilities to the point observations you sent to me.
Here's how I tested:
- Pulled a sample SREF file from
https://nomads.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/data/nccf/com/sref/prod/sref.20200920/09/ensprod/sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2
- Ran point_stat like this:
/Volumes/d1/projects/MET/MET_development/MET-
main_v9.1/met/bin/point_stat \
sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2 2020080612.nc PointStatConfig_sref
\ -outdir out -v 3
Using the attached config file.
And I see the following matching counts in the log messages:
DEBUG 2: Processing PROB(APCP_06>6.350)/A06/PROB versus TP06/L0, for
observation type ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method
NEAREST(1), using 5630 matched pairs.
DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 5630
DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 783635
DEBUG 3: Rejected: station id = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 774152
DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 3853
DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
...
My config file has several changes:
- Different way of pulling forecast probabilities, specifying "prob"
as a dictionary instead of a boolean.
- In the "obs" dictionary, I changed "level" from "A6" to "L0".
- In the "obs" dictionary, I changed the "cat_thresh" to be consistent
with the forecast probabilities.
- I disabled the "climo_mean" entry since I don't have your data.
- I added a few 0's to the "obs_window" setting since the forecast
valid time doesn't match the time of the point observations.
Anything in there that might help?
Thanks,
John
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 10:00 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
>
> Sounds good.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 10:57 AM
> To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of
TP06
> field in Prepbufr data
>
> Bob,
>
> Sorry for the delay. Yes, I pulled the 2020080612.nc file. I do not
> have the file with your forecast probabilities.
> So I just grabbed a sample Short-Range Ensemble Forecast data file
> from NOAA/EMC with which to test:
>
>
>
https://nomads.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/data/nccf/com/sref/prod/sref.20200920
> /09/ensprod/sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2
>
> I have a couple of meetings this morning but will work on setting up
> an example and get back to you later today.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 11:10 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
> >
> > No, still rejecting on obs. Hopefully I can get you the netcdf ob
> > file on Monday. I will also send the config file I use for PB2NC
to
> > see if there are any setting in there not quite right.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Bob
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 11:22 AM
> > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of
> > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> >
> > Bob,
> >
> > Ah OK. I'm looking more closely at your Point-Stat config file.
> >
> > You'll probably need to change:
> >
> > FROM:
> > obs = {
> > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> > sid_exc = [];
> > field = [
> > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => .01;},
> > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => .10;},
> > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => .25;},
> > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => .50;},
> > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => 1.0;}
> > ];
> > }
> > TO:
> > obs = {
> > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> > sid_exc = [];
> > field = [
> > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >.01;},
> > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >.10;},
> > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >.25;},
> > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >.50;},
> > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >1.0;}
> > ];
> > }
> >
> > There are 2 small changes there. Replacing "A6" with "L0" and
> > getting rid of white-space between the ">" and the threshold
value.
> > The point observations do not include a way of indicating an
> > "accumulation
> interval".
> > I suspect that's why it's embedded in the variable name, where
TP06
> > means 6-hourly total precip.
> >
> > Please let me know if that produces better results.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > John
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 9:28 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
> > >
> > > John, Both the ADPSFC and SFCSHP have TP06 obs. The obs are
being
> > > rejected due to obs type not message type. I will see what
> > > happened to
> > the
> > > DODsafe file. Hopefully I will know more by Monday.
> > >
> > > Bob
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 5:26 PM
> > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use
of
> > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > >
> > > Bob,
> > >
> > > I didn't see a DODSAFE message come through, and I'll be out of
> > > the
> > office
> > > tomorrow.
> > >
> > > In your Point-Stat config file, I see that you're verifying
> > > against observations of type "ADPSFC":
> > >
> > > obs = {
> > > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> > > ...
> > > }
> > >
> > > So we just need to figure out if the PTYPE obs have that message
type.
> > > Run plot_point_obs using the "-obs_var TP06 -msg_typ ADPSFC"
> > > options. If there we get some red dots on the output, then we've
> > > got the correct message type. If not, you'll need to figure out
> > > the message type used for
> > > TP06 obs and request that in the Point-Stat configuration file
instead.
> > >
> > > When you run Point-Stat be sure to continue using the "-v 3"
> > > option to
> > dump
> > > out counts of reason codes for why observations were or were not
> > > used in the verification.
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 1:51 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT
<
> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
>
> > > >
> > > > John, I was able to plot the data in plot_point_obs so the
data
> > > > is
> > there.
> > > > Digging in to the NETCDF file which contains the data, I see
> > > > there are three message types (ADPSFC,ADPUPR, SFCSHP). In my
> > > > config file
> > > (attached)
> > > > I leave the message type field empty which I thought means use
> > > > them
> > all.
> > > > Using ncdump to peer into the file, I can see where in the
> > > > variable
> > TP06
> > > > is in the file (variable number 14). I sent the netcdf file
via
> > DODSAFE.
> > > > Any other things I should check?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Bob
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 5:06 PM
> > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > >
> > > > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of
> > > > TP06
> > field
> > > > in Prepbufr data
> > > >
> > > > Bob,
> > > >
> > > > Nothing immediately jumps out at me as an obvious problem.
> > > > There's
> > really
> > > > multiple steps occurring here:
> > > > (1) Configure/run pb2nc and retain TP06 observations.
> > > > (2) Configure/run point_stat to verify against those
observations.
> > > >
> > > > I'd recommend making sure that (1) works as expected. You
could
> > > > do so,
> > > but
> > > > running plot_point_obs on the output from pb2nc. Use the
> > > > "-obs_var
> > TP06"
> > > > command line option to only process observations of that type.
> > > > If there are red dots in the output postscript image, then you
> > > > know you
> > > successfully
> > > > retained them. If not, then you need to work on the PB2NC
> > configuration.
> > > >
> > > > Once you know (1) is working, run (2). I don't know what
> "message_type"
> > > is
> > > > used for TP06 observations. So we'll need to figure that out
and
> > request
> > > > that message type in the Point-Stat config file.
> > > >
> > > > Please let me know how it goes.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 3:18 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via
RT
> > > > < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Tue Sep 15 15:18:49 2020: Request 96729 was acted upon.
> > > > > Transaction: Ticket created by robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > Queue: met_help
> > > > > Subject: Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > > Owner: Nobody
> > > > > Requestors: robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > Status: new
> > > > > Ticket <URL:
> > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > John, I am exploring using the TP06 field in Prepbufr data
for
> 6hour
> > > > > precip. When I run point stat using TP06 for ob name and
A6 for
> > > level,
> > > > > met rejects them for ob type. What do people typically use
> > > > > for
> TP06.
> > > > > I will send a prepbufr file to you tomorrow that I am using.
> > > > > Any
> > idea
> > > > > what might be wrong?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > Bob
> > > > > Bob
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
From: John Halley Gotway
Time: Wed Sep 23 08:37:20 2020
Bob,
When I run with the data you sent, I get these warnings:
WARNING: process_fcst_climo_files() -> no fields matching QP100/A006
found
in file: grib.2020091500.0012
I assume you're using a custom GRIB table which defines those variable
names: QP010, QP025, and so on
Since I don't have that table and couldn't find one referencing those
variable names being used by the other DTC Air Force projects, I used
wgrib
to see the accumulation intervals and range of values and make an
educated
guess as to which records correspond to these variables.
Since this is just for testing, it doesn't really matter, but here's
what I
guessed:
PQP1 = rec4 (name = UVI)
QP010 = rec6 (name = HPBL)
QP025 = rec7 (name = 5WAVH)
QP050 = rec8 (name = CNWAT)
QP100 = rec11 (name = BMIXL)
So that's why you'll see these weird variable names in my Point-Stat
config
file. At verbosity level 3, I see the following reason counts:
DEBUG 2: Processing BMIXL/A006 versus TP06/A6, for observation type
ADPSFC,
over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1), using 0 matched
pairs.
DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 783635
DEBUG 3: Rejected: station id = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 774152
DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 9483
DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality marker = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad fcst value = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad climo mean = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad climo stdev = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
The order listed in these log messages matches the order of the
filtering
logic applied. So we had 9483 obs discarded because of valid time.
That
means we're not getting matches because of an offset in time.
Running wgrib with the "-verf" option, I see:
wgrib -verf grib.2020091500.0012| head -1
1:0:d=*20091512*:MSLSA:kpds5=128:kpds6=1:kpds7=0:TR=0:P1=12:P2=0:TimeU=1:sfc:12hr
fcst:NAve=0
While the timestamp listed in the filename is 2020, the timestamp
listed in
the data is 2009. And that's why we're not getting matches.
If this data really is from 2020 and you can modify the GRIB file, you
should correct it to say 2020. If you can't modify the GRIB file, you
could
upgrade to met-9.1 and make use of the new "set_attr" options to
override
the metadata of the file. If you look in the user's guide (
https://dtcenter.github.io/MET/Users_Guide/data_io.html), and search
for
"set_attr", you'll find the new config file options added in met-9.1.
Thanks,
John
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 2:50 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
>
> John,
>
> I tried your changes but I could not get it to work. I am sending
you the
> probability file and the ob file. Our probability files differ from
SREF
> so this should be a closer comparison. I tried different
combinations of
> things in the met config file, even commenting out the climo stuff
but
> still no good. Up until now, we have been using our own version of
netcdf
> precip file and that works. But our data has very few precip obs
over
> Africa so we need to switch to using the Prepbufr data for precip.
>
> Thanks
> Bob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 2:24 PM
> To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
<robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of
TP06
> field in Prepbufr data
>
> Bob,
>
> OK, I was successful in getting matched pairs when comparing SREF
> probabilities to the point observations you sent to me.
>
> Here's how I tested:
>
> - Pulled a sample SREF file from
>
>
https://nomads.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/data/nccf/com/sref/prod/sref.20200920/09/ensprod/sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2
>
> - Ran point_stat like this:
> /Volumes/d1/projects/MET/MET_development/MET-
main_v9.1/met/bin/point_stat \
> sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2 2020080612.nc
PointStatConfig_sref \
> -outdir out -v 3
>
> Using the attached config file.
>
> And I see the following matching counts in the log messages:
>
> DEBUG 2: Processing PROB(APCP_06>6.350)/A06/PROB versus TP06/L0, for
> observation type ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method
> NEAREST(1), using 5630 matched pairs.
> DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 5630
> DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 783635
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: station id = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 774152
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 3853
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> ...
>
> My config file has several changes:
> - Different way of pulling forecast probabilities, specifying "prob"
as a
> dictionary instead of a boolean.
> - In the "obs" dictionary, I changed "level" from "A6" to "L0".
> - In the "obs" dictionary, I changed the "cat_thresh" to be
consistent
> with the forecast probabilities.
> - I disabled the "climo_mean" entry since I don't have your data.
> - I added a few 0's to the "obs_window" setting since the forecast
valid
> time doesn't match the time of the point observations.
>
> Anything in there that might help?
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 10:00 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
> >
> > Sounds good.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 10:57 AM
> > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of
TP06
> > field in Prepbufr data
> >
> > Bob,
> >
> > Sorry for the delay. Yes, I pulled the 2020080612.nc file. I do
not
> > have the file with your forecast probabilities.
> > So I just grabbed a sample Short-Range Ensemble Forecast data file
> > from NOAA/EMC with which to test:
> >
> >
> >
https://nomads.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/data/nccf/com/sref/prod/sref.20200920
> > /09/ensprod/sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2
> >
> > I have a couple of meetings this morning but will work on setting
up
> > an example and get back to you later today.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > John
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 11:10 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
> > >
> > > No, still rejecting on obs. Hopefully I can get you the netcdf
ob
> > > file on Monday. I will also send the config file I use for
PB2NC to
> > > see if there are any setting in there not quite right.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Bob
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 11:22 AM
> > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use
of
> > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > >
> > > Bob,
> > >
> > > Ah OK. I'm looking more closely at your Point-Stat config file.
> > >
> > > You'll probably need to change:
> > >
> > > FROM:
> > > obs = {
> > > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> > > sid_exc = [];
> > > field = [
> > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => .01;},
> > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => .10;},
> > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => .25;},
> > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => .50;},
> > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => 1.0;}
> > > ];
> > > }
> > > TO:
> > > obs = {
> > > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> > > sid_exc = [];
> > > field = [
> > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >.01;},
> > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >.10;},
> > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >.25;},
> > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >.50;},
> > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >1.0;}
> > > ];
> > > }
> > >
> > > There are 2 small changes there. Replacing "A6" with "L0" and
> > > getting rid of white-space between the ">" and the threshold
value.
> > > The point observations do not include a way of indicating an
> > > "accumulation
> > interval".
> > > I suspect that's why it's embedded in the variable name, where
TP06
> > > means 6-hourly total precip.
> > >
> > > Please let me know if that produces better results.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > John
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 9:28 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT
<
> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
>
> > > >
> > > > John, Both the ADPSFC and SFCSHP have TP06 obs. The obs are
being
> > > > rejected due to obs type not message type. I will see what
> > > > happened to
> > > the
> > > > DODsafe file. Hopefully I will know more by Monday.
> > > >
> > > > Bob
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 5:26 PM
> > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use
of
> > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > >
> > > > Bob,
> > > >
> > > > I didn't see a DODSAFE message come through, and I'll be out
of
> > > > the
> > > office
> > > > tomorrow.
> > > >
> > > > In your Point-Stat config file, I see that you're verifying
> > > > against observations of type "ADPSFC":
> > > >
> > > > obs = {
> > > > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > > > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> > > > ...
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > So we just need to figure out if the PTYPE obs have that
message
> type.
> > > > Run plot_point_obs using the "-obs_var TP06 -msg_typ ADPSFC"
> > > > options. If there we get some red dots on the output, then
we've
> > > > got the correct message type. If not, you'll need to figure
out
> > > > the message type used for
> > > > TP06 obs and request that in the Point-Stat configuration file
> instead.
> > > >
> > > > When you run Point-Stat be sure to continue using the "-v 3"
> > > > option to
> > > dump
> > > > out counts of reason codes for why observations were or were
not
> > > > used in the verification.
> > > >
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 1:51 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via
RT <
> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
> > > > >
> > > > > John, I was able to plot the data in plot_point_obs so the
data
> > > > > is
> > > there.
> > > > > Digging in to the NETCDF file which contains the data, I see
> > > > > there are three message types (ADPSFC,ADPUPR, SFCSHP). In
my
> > > > > config file
> > > > (attached)
> > > > > I leave the message type field empty which I thought means
use
> > > > > them
> > > all.
> > > > > Using ncdump to peer into the file, I can see where in the
> > > > > variable
> > > TP06
> > > > > is in the file (variable number 14). I sent the netcdf file
via
> > > DODSAFE.
> > > > > Any other things I should check?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > Bob
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 5:06 PM
> > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > >
> > > > > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use
of
> > > > > TP06
> > > field
> > > > > in Prepbufr data
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob,
> > > > >
> > > > > Nothing immediately jumps out at me as an obvious problem.
> > > > > There's
> > > really
> > > > > multiple steps occurring here:
> > > > > (1) Configure/run pb2nc and retain TP06 observations.
> > > > > (2) Configure/run point_stat to verify against those
observations.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd recommend making sure that (1) works as expected. You
could
> > > > > do so,
> > > > but
> > > > > running plot_point_obs on the output from pb2nc. Use the
> > > > > "-obs_var
> > > TP06"
> > > > > command line option to only process observations of that
type.
> > > > > If there are red dots in the output postscript image, then
you
> > > > > know you
> > > > successfully
> > > > > retained them. If not, then you need to work on the PB2NC
> > > configuration.
> > > > >
> > > > > Once you know (1) is working, run (2). I don't know what
> > "message_type"
> > > > is
> > > > > used for TP06 observations. So we'll need to figure that out
and
> > > request
> > > > > that message type in the Point-Stat config file.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please let me know how it goes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > John
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 3:18 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via
RT
> > > > > < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tue Sep 15 15:18:49 2020: Request 96729 was acted upon.
> > > > > > Transaction: Ticket created by robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > Queue: met_help
> > > > > > Subject: Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > > > Owner: Nobody
> > > > > > Requestors: robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > Status: new
> > > > > > Ticket <URL:
> > > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John, I am exploring using the TP06 field in Prepbufr data
for
> > 6hour
> > > > > > precip. When I run point stat using TP06 for ob name and
A6 for
> > > > level,
> > > > > > met rejects them for ob type. What do people typically
use
> > > > > > for
> > TP06.
> > > > > > I will send a prepbufr file to you tomorrow that I am
using.
> > > > > > Any
> > > idea
> > > > > > what might be wrong?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > Bob
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
From: robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
Time: Wed Sep 23 09:09:00 2020
John, the data in model file is for 202009 (Sep 2020). When I run MET
against these data, I am getting mdlob_pairs (for other variables
such as ceiling heights) so I am not throwing all the data due to
valid time. Looking in the MET data, the MPR lines have the correct
date in them so I am not sure why you are seeing this as an issue.
Your data is rejecting most obs because of obs type for TP06. That is
the problem I am having - all TP06 obs rejected because of ob type.
Any idea why that is occurring? By the way we are still on MET 8.1,
hope to see MET 9.1 with MET viewer.
Thanks
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 9:37 AM
To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
<robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of TP06
field in Prepbufr data
Bob,
When I run with the data you sent, I get these warnings:
WARNING: process_fcst_climo_files() -> no fields matching QP100/A006
found in file: grib.2020091500.0012
I assume you're using a custom GRIB table which defines those variable
names: QP010, QP025, and so on
Since I don't have that table and couldn't find one referencing those
variable names being used by the other DTC Air Force projects, I used
wgrib to see the accumulation intervals and range of values and make
an educated guess as to which records correspond to these variables.
Since this is just for testing, it doesn't really matter, but here's
what I
guessed:
PQP1 = rec4 (name = UVI)
QP010 = rec6 (name = HPBL)
QP025 = rec7 (name = 5WAVH)
QP050 = rec8 (name = CNWAT)
QP100 = rec11 (name = BMIXL)
So that's why you'll see these weird variable names in my Point-Stat
config file. At verbosity level 3, I see the following reason counts:
DEBUG 2: Processing BMIXL/A006 versus TP06/A6, for observation type
ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1), using 0
matched pairs.
DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 783635
DEBUG 3: Rejected: station id = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 774152
DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 9483
DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality marker = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad fcst value = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad climo mean = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad climo stdev = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
The order listed in these log messages matches the order of the
filtering logic applied. So we had 9483 obs discarded because of valid
time. That means we're not getting matches because of an offset in
time.
Running wgrib with the "-verf" option, I see:
wgrib -verf grib.2020091500.0012| head -1
1:0:d=*20091512*:MSLSA:kpds5=128:kpds6=1:kpds7=0:TR=0:P1=12:P2=0:TimeU=1:sfc:12hr
fcst:NAve=0
While the timestamp listed in the filename is 2020, the timestamp
listed in the data is 2009. And that's why we're not getting matches.
If this data really is from 2020 and you can modify the GRIB file, you
should correct it to say 2020. If you can't modify the GRIB file, you
could upgrade to met-9.1 and make use of the new "set_attr" options to
override the metadata of the file. If you look in the user's guide (
https://dtcenter.github.io/MET/Users_Guide/data_io.html), and search
for "set_attr", you'll find the new config file options added in met-
9.1.
Thanks,
John
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 2:50 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
>
> John,
>
> I tried your changes but I could not get it to work. I am sending
you
> the probability file and the ob file. Our probability files differ
> from SREF so this should be a closer comparison. I tried different
> combinations of things in the met config file, even commenting out
the
> climo stuff but still no good. Up until now, we have been using our
> own version of netcdf precip file and that works. But our data has
> very few precip obs over Africa so we need to switch to using the
Prepbufr data for precip.
>
> Thanks
> Bob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 2:24 PM
> To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of
TP06
> field in Prepbufr data
>
> Bob,
>
> OK, I was successful in getting matched pairs when comparing SREF
> probabilities to the point observations you sent to me.
>
> Here's how I tested:
>
> - Pulled a sample SREF file from
>
>
https://nomads.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/data/nccf/com/sref/prod/sref.20200920
> /09/ensprod/sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2
>
> - Ran point_stat like this:
> /Volumes/d1/projects/MET/MET_development/MET-
main_v9.1/met/bin/point_s
> tat \
> sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2 2020080612.nc
PointStatConfig_sref
> \ -outdir out -v 3
>
> Using the attached config file.
>
> And I see the following matching counts in the log messages:
>
> DEBUG 2: Processing PROB(APCP_06>6.350)/A06/PROB versus TP06/L0, for
> observation type ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method
> NEAREST(1), using 5630 matched pairs.
> DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 5630
> DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 783635
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: station id = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 774152
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 3853
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> ...
>
> My config file has several changes:
> - Different way of pulling forecast probabilities, specifying "prob"
> as a dictionary instead of a boolean.
> - In the "obs" dictionary, I changed "level" from "A6" to "L0".
> - In the "obs" dictionary, I changed the "cat_thresh" to be
consistent
> with the forecast probabilities.
> - I disabled the "climo_mean" entry since I don't have your data.
> - I added a few 0's to the "obs_window" setting since the forecast
> valid time doesn't match the time of the point observations.
>
> Anything in there that might help?
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 10:00 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
> >
> > Sounds good.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 10:57 AM
> > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of
> > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> >
> > Bob,
> >
> > Sorry for the delay. Yes, I pulled the 2020080612.nc file. I do
not
> > have the file with your forecast probabilities.
> > So I just grabbed a sample Short-Range Ensemble Forecast data file
> > from NOAA/EMC with which to test:
> >
> >
> >
https://nomads.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/data/nccf/com/sref/prod/sref.202009
> > 20
> > /09/ensprod/sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2
> >
> > I have a couple of meetings this morning but will work on setting
up
> > an example and get back to you later today.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > John
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 11:10 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
> > >
> > > No, still rejecting on obs. Hopefully I can get you the netcdf
ob
> > > file on Monday. I will also send the config file I use for
PB2NC
> > > to see if there are any setting in there not quite right.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Bob
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 11:22 AM
> > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use
of
> > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > >
> > > Bob,
> > >
> > > Ah OK. I'm looking more closely at your Point-Stat config file.
> > >
> > > You'll probably need to change:
> > >
> > > FROM:
> > > obs = {
> > > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> > > sid_exc = [];
> > > field = [
> > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => .01;},
> > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => .10;},
> > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => .25;},
> > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => .50;},
> > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => 1.0;}
> > > ];
> > > }
> > > TO:
> > > obs = {
> > > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> > > sid_exc = [];
> > > field = [
> > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >.01;},
> > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >.10;},
> > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >.25;},
> > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >.50;},
> > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >1.0;}
> > > ];
> > > }
> > >
> > > There are 2 small changes there. Replacing "A6" with "L0" and
> > > getting rid of white-space between the ">" and the threshold
value.
> > > The point observations do not include a way of indicating an
> > > "accumulation
> > interval".
> > > I suspect that's why it's embedded in the variable name, where
> > > TP06 means 6-hourly total precip.
> > >
> > > Please let me know if that produces better results.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > John
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 9:28 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT
<
> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
>
> > > >
> > > > John, Both the ADPSFC and SFCSHP have TP06 obs. The obs are
> > > > being rejected due to obs type not message type. I will see
> > > > what happened to
> > > the
> > > > DODsafe file. Hopefully I will know more by Monday.
> > > >
> > > > Bob
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 5:26 PM
> > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use
> > > > of
> > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > >
> > > > Bob,
> > > >
> > > > I didn't see a DODSAFE message come through, and I'll be out
of
> > > > the
> > > office
> > > > tomorrow.
> > > >
> > > > In your Point-Stat config file, I see that you're verifying
> > > > against observations of type "ADPSFC":
> > > >
> > > > obs = {
> > > > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > > > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> > > > ...
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > So we just need to figure out if the PTYPE obs have that
message
> type.
> > > > Run plot_point_obs using the "-obs_var TP06 -msg_typ ADPSFC"
> > > > options. If there we get some red dots on the output, then
we've
> > > > got the correct message type. If not, you'll need to figure
out
> > > > the message type used for
> > > > TP06 obs and request that in the Point-Stat configuration file
> instead.
> > > >
> > > > When you run Point-Stat be sure to continue using the "-v 3"
> > > > option to
> > > dump
> > > > out counts of reason codes for why observations were or were
not
> > > > used in the verification.
> > > >
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 1:51 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via
RT
> > > > < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > John, I was able to plot the data in plot_point_obs so the
> > > > > data is
> > > there.
> > > > > Digging in to the NETCDF file which contains the data, I see
> > > > > there are three message types (ADPSFC,ADPUPR, SFCSHP). In
my
> > > > > config file
> > > > (attached)
> > > > > I leave the message type field empty which I thought means
use
> > > > > them
> > > all.
> > > > > Using ncdump to peer into the file, I can see where in the
> > > > > variable
> > > TP06
> > > > > is in the file (variable number 14). I sent the netcdf file
> > > > > via
> > > DODSAFE.
> > > > > Any other things I should check?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > Bob
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 5:06 PM
> > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > >
> > > > > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use
of
> > > > > TP06
> > > field
> > > > > in Prepbufr data
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob,
> > > > >
> > > > > Nothing immediately jumps out at me as an obvious problem.
> > > > > There's
> > > really
> > > > > multiple steps occurring here:
> > > > > (1) Configure/run pb2nc and retain TP06 observations.
> > > > > (2) Configure/run point_stat to verify against those
observations.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd recommend making sure that (1) works as expected. You
> > > > > could do so,
> > > > but
> > > > > running plot_point_obs on the output from pb2nc. Use the
> > > > > "-obs_var
> > > TP06"
> > > > > command line option to only process observations of that
type.
> > > > > If there are red dots in the output postscript image, then
you
> > > > > know you
> > > > successfully
> > > > > retained them. If not, then you need to work on the PB2NC
> > > configuration.
> > > > >
> > > > > Once you know (1) is working, run (2). I don't know what
> > "message_type"
> > > > is
> > > > > used for TP06 observations. So we'll need to figure that out
> > > > > and
> > > request
> > > > > that message type in the Point-Stat config file.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please let me know how it goes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > John
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 3:18 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via
> > > > > RT < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tue Sep 15 15:18:49 2020: Request 96729 was acted upon.
> > > > > > Transaction: Ticket created by robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > Queue: met_help
> > > > > > Subject: Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > > > Owner: Nobody
> > > > > > Requestors: robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > Status: new
> > > > > > Ticket <URL:
> > > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John, I am exploring using the TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > > > for
> > 6hour
> > > > > > precip. When I run point stat using TP06 for ob name and
A6 for
> > > > level,
> > > > > > met rejects them for ob type. What do people typically
use
> > > > > > for
> > TP06.
> > > > > > I will send a prepbufr file to you tomorrow that I am
using.
> > > > > > Any
> > > idea
> > > > > > what might be wrong?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > Bob
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
From: robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
Time: Wed Sep 23 09:13:23 2020
John, attached is our grib 2 file we are using. I should have sent it
earlier.
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 9:37 AM
To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
<robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of TP06
field in Prepbufr data
Bob,
When I run with the data you sent, I get these warnings:
WARNING: process_fcst_climo_files() -> no fields matching QP100/A006
found in file: grib.2020091500.0012
I assume you're using a custom GRIB table which defines those variable
names: QP010, QP025, and so on
Since I don't have that table and couldn't find one referencing those
variable names being used by the other DTC Air Force projects, I used
wgrib to see the accumulation intervals and range of values and make
an educated guess as to which records correspond to these variables.
Since this is just for testing, it doesn't really matter, but here's
what I
guessed:
PQP1 = rec4 (name = UVI)
QP010 = rec6 (name = HPBL)
QP025 = rec7 (name = 5WAVH)
QP050 = rec8 (name = CNWAT)
QP100 = rec11 (name = BMIXL)
So that's why you'll see these weird variable names in my Point-Stat
config file. At verbosity level 3, I see the following reason counts:
DEBUG 2: Processing BMIXL/A006 versus TP06/A6, for observation type
ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1), using 0
matched pairs.
DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 783635
DEBUG 3: Rejected: station id = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 774152
DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 9483
DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality marker = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad fcst value = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad climo mean = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad climo stdev = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
The order listed in these log messages matches the order of the
filtering logic applied. So we had 9483 obs discarded because of valid
time. That means we're not getting matches because of an offset in
time.
Running wgrib with the "-verf" option, I see:
wgrib -verf grib.2020091500.0012| head -1
1:0:d=*20091512*:MSLSA:kpds5=128:kpds6=1:kpds7=0:TR=0:P1=12:P2=0:TimeU=1:sfc:12hr
fcst:NAve=0
While the timestamp listed in the filename is 2020, the timestamp
listed in the data is 2009. And that's why we're not getting matches.
If this data really is from 2020 and you can modify the GRIB file, you
should correct it to say 2020. If you can't modify the GRIB file, you
could upgrade to met-9.1 and make use of the new "set_attr" options to
override the metadata of the file. If you look in the user's guide (
https://dtcenter.github.io/MET/Users_Guide/data_io.html), and search
for "set_attr", you'll find the new config file options added in met-
9.1.
Thanks,
John
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 2:50 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
>
> John,
>
> I tried your changes but I could not get it to work. I am sending
you
> the probability file and the ob file. Our probability files differ
> from SREF so this should be a closer comparison. I tried different
> combinations of things in the met config file, even commenting out
the
> climo stuff but still no good. Up until now, we have been using our
> own version of netcdf precip file and that works. But our data has
> very few precip obs over Africa so we need to switch to using the
Prepbufr data for precip.
>
> Thanks
> Bob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 2:24 PM
> To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of
TP06
> field in Prepbufr data
>
> Bob,
>
> OK, I was successful in getting matched pairs when comparing SREF
> probabilities to the point observations you sent to me.
>
> Here's how I tested:
>
> - Pulled a sample SREF file from
>
>
https://nomads.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/data/nccf/com/sref/prod/sref.20200920
> /09/ensprod/sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2
>
> - Ran point_stat like this:
> /Volumes/d1/projects/MET/MET_development/MET-
main_v9.1/met/bin/point_s
> tat \
> sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2 2020080612.nc
PointStatConfig_sref
> \ -outdir out -v 3
>
> Using the attached config file.
>
> And I see the following matching counts in the log messages:
>
> DEBUG 2: Processing PROB(APCP_06>6.350)/A06/PROB versus TP06/L0, for
> observation type ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method
> NEAREST(1), using 5630 matched pairs.
> DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 5630
> DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 783635
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: station id = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 774152
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 3853
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> ...
>
> My config file has several changes:
> - Different way of pulling forecast probabilities, specifying "prob"
> as a dictionary instead of a boolean.
> - In the "obs" dictionary, I changed "level" from "A6" to "L0".
> - In the "obs" dictionary, I changed the "cat_thresh" to be
consistent
> with the forecast probabilities.
> - I disabled the "climo_mean" entry since I don't have your data.
> - I added a few 0's to the "obs_window" setting since the forecast
> valid time doesn't match the time of the point observations.
>
> Anything in there that might help?
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 10:00 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
> >
> > Sounds good.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 10:57 AM
> > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of
> > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> >
> > Bob,
> >
> > Sorry for the delay. Yes, I pulled the 2020080612.nc file. I do
not
> > have the file with your forecast probabilities.
> > So I just grabbed a sample Short-Range Ensemble Forecast data file
> > from NOAA/EMC with which to test:
> >
> >
> >
https://nomads.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/data/nccf/com/sref/prod/sref.202009
> > 20
> > /09/ensprod/sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2
> >
> > I have a couple of meetings this morning but will work on setting
up
> > an example and get back to you later today.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > John
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 11:10 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
> > >
> > > No, still rejecting on obs. Hopefully I can get you the netcdf
ob
> > > file on Monday. I will also send the config file I use for
PB2NC
> > > to see if there are any setting in there not quite right.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Bob
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 11:22 AM
> > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use
of
> > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > >
> > > Bob,
> > >
> > > Ah OK. I'm looking more closely at your Point-Stat config file.
> > >
> > > You'll probably need to change:
> > >
> > > FROM:
> > > obs = {
> > > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> > > sid_exc = [];
> > > field = [
> > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => .01;},
> > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => .10;},
> > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => .25;},
> > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => .50;},
> > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => 1.0;}
> > > ];
> > > }
> > > TO:
> > > obs = {
> > > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> > > sid_exc = [];
> > > field = [
> > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >.01;},
> > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >.10;},
> > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >.25;},
> > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >.50;},
> > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >1.0;}
> > > ];
> > > }
> > >
> > > There are 2 small changes there. Replacing "A6" with "L0" and
> > > getting rid of white-space between the ">" and the threshold
value.
> > > The point observations do not include a way of indicating an
> > > "accumulation
> > interval".
> > > I suspect that's why it's embedded in the variable name, where
> > > TP06 means 6-hourly total precip.
> > >
> > > Please let me know if that produces better results.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > John
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 9:28 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT
<
> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
>
> > > >
> > > > John, Both the ADPSFC and SFCSHP have TP06 obs. The obs are
> > > > being rejected due to obs type not message type. I will see
> > > > what happened to
> > > the
> > > > DODsafe file. Hopefully I will know more by Monday.
> > > >
> > > > Bob
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 5:26 PM
> > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use
> > > > of
> > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > >
> > > > Bob,
> > > >
> > > > I didn't see a DODSAFE message come through, and I'll be out
of
> > > > the
> > > office
> > > > tomorrow.
> > > >
> > > > In your Point-Stat config file, I see that you're verifying
> > > > against observations of type "ADPSFC":
> > > >
> > > > obs = {
> > > > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > > > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> > > > ...
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > So we just need to figure out if the PTYPE obs have that
message
> type.
> > > > Run plot_point_obs using the "-obs_var TP06 -msg_typ ADPSFC"
> > > > options. If there we get some red dots on the output, then
we've
> > > > got the correct message type. If not, you'll need to figure
out
> > > > the message type used for
> > > > TP06 obs and request that in the Point-Stat configuration file
> instead.
> > > >
> > > > When you run Point-Stat be sure to continue using the "-v 3"
> > > > option to
> > > dump
> > > > out counts of reason codes for why observations were or were
not
> > > > used in the verification.
> > > >
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 1:51 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via
RT
> > > > < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > John, I was able to plot the data in plot_point_obs so the
> > > > > data is
> > > there.
> > > > > Digging in to the NETCDF file which contains the data, I see
> > > > > there are three message types (ADPSFC,ADPUPR, SFCSHP). In
my
> > > > > config file
> > > > (attached)
> > > > > I leave the message type field empty which I thought means
use
> > > > > them
> > > all.
> > > > > Using ncdump to peer into the file, I can see where in the
> > > > > variable
> > > TP06
> > > > > is in the file (variable number 14). I sent the netcdf file
> > > > > via
> > > DODSAFE.
> > > > > Any other things I should check?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > Bob
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 5:06 PM
> > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > >
> > > > > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use
of
> > > > > TP06
> > > field
> > > > > in Prepbufr data
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob,
> > > > >
> > > > > Nothing immediately jumps out at me as an obvious problem.
> > > > > There's
> > > really
> > > > > multiple steps occurring here:
> > > > > (1) Configure/run pb2nc and retain TP06 observations.
> > > > > (2) Configure/run point_stat to verify against those
observations.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd recommend making sure that (1) works as expected. You
> > > > > could do so,
> > > > but
> > > > > running plot_point_obs on the output from pb2nc. Use the
> > > > > "-obs_var
> > > TP06"
> > > > > command line option to only process observations of that
type.
> > > > > If there are red dots in the output postscript image, then
you
> > > > > know you
> > > > successfully
> > > > > retained them. If not, then you need to work on the PB2NC
> > > configuration.
> > > > >
> > > > > Once you know (1) is working, run (2). I don't know what
> > "message_type"
> > > > is
> > > > > used for TP06 observations. So we'll need to figure that out
> > > > > and
> > > request
> > > > > that message type in the Point-Stat config file.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please let me know how it goes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > John
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 3:18 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via
> > > > > RT < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tue Sep 15 15:18:49 2020: Request 96729 was acted upon.
> > > > > > Transaction: Ticket created by robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > Queue: met_help
> > > > > > Subject: Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > > > Owner: Nobody
> > > > > > Requestors: robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > Status: new
> > > > > > Ticket <URL:
> > > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John, I am exploring using the TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > > > for
> > 6hour
> > > > > > precip. When I run point stat using TP06 for ob name and
A6 for
> > > > level,
> > > > > > met rejects them for ob type. What do people typically
use
> > > > > > for
> > TP06.
> > > > > > I will send a prepbufr file to you tomorrow that I am
using.
> > > > > > Any
> > > idea
> > > > > > what might be wrong?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > Bob
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
From: robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
Time: Wed Sep 23 09:13:23 2020
GRIB2
0 1 0 255 57 1 6 13 "CEIL" "Probability of ceiling < 500ft" "%"
0 14 0 255 57 0 1 33 "CRAIN" "Categorical Rain" "-"
0 14 0 255 57 0 1 36 "CSNOW" "Categorical Snow" "-"
0 14 0 255 57 0 1 34 "CFRZR" "Categorical Freezing Rain" "-"
0 14 0 255 57 0 19 0 "VIS" "Visibility" "m"
0 10 0 255 57 1 19 161 "PWS15" "10 m above ground" "%"
0 10 0 255 57 1 19 163 "PWS25" "10 m above ground" "%"
0 10 0 255 57 1 19 164 "PWS35" "Probabilty of 10 m winds above
35kts" "%"
0 10 0 255 57 1 19 165 "PWS50" "Probabilty of 10 m winds above
50kts" "%"
0 10 0 255 57 1 19 182 "PSN1" "Probability of snow accumulation > 1"
"%"
0 10 0 255 57 1 19 183 "PSN2" "Probability of snow accumulation > 2"
"%"
0 1 0 255 57 1 1 8 "APCP" "Probability of precip accumulation > .10"
"%"
0 1 0 255 57 1 1 8 "APCP" "Probability of precip accumulation > .25"
"%"
0 1 0 255 57 1 1 8 "APCP" "Probability of precip accumulation > .50"
"%"
0 1 0 255 57 1 1 8 "APCP" "Probability of precip accumulation > .75"
"%"
0 1 0 255 57 1 1 8 "APCP" "Probability of precip accumulation > 1.0"
"%"
0 1 0 255 57 1 1 8 "APCP" "Probability of precip accumulation > 5.0"
"%"
0 10 0 255 57 1 19 211 "DUST" "Dust visiblity" "m"
0 10 0 255 57 1 19 212 "PT273" "Probability of 2m temperature > 273"
"%"
0 10 0 255 57 1 19 213 "PT305" "Probability of 2m temperature > 305"
"%"
0 10 0 255 57 1 19 207 "PHT58" "Probability of 500mb HGT > 5800 m"
"%"
0 10 0 255 57 1 19 203 "PVIS1" "Probability of surface visiblity < 1
mi" "%"
0 10 0 255 57 1 19 202 "PVIS3" "Probability of surface visibility <
3 mi" "%"
0 10 0 255 57 1 19 201 "PVIS5" "Probability of surface visibility <
5 mi" "%"
0 10 0 255 57 1 19 224 "PC20" "Probabilty of Total Cloud < 20 %"
"%"
0 10 0 255 57 1 19 225 "PC80" "Probablity of Total Cloud > 80 %"
"%"
0 14 0 255 57 0 1 8 "APCP" "Total accumulated precipitation"
"kilogramsPerMeterSquared"
0 1 0 255 57 1 1 8 "APCP" "Probability of precip accumulation > .01"
"%"
0 1 0 255 57 1 1 8 "APCP" "Probability of precip accumulation > .02"
"%"
0 1 0 255 57 1 1 8 "APCP" "Probability of precip accumulation > .05"
"%"
0 14 0 255 57 1 1 191 "GEOLAT" "Latitude" "deg"
0 14 0 255 57 1 6 11 "CEIL" "entire atmosphere" "m"
0 1 0 255 57 1 6 13 "CEIL" "prob <500" "%"
0 1 0 255 57 1 3 5 "HGT1" "prob <5400" "%"
0 14 0 255 57 1 6 1 "TCDC" "Total Cloud Cover" "%"
0 10 0 255 57 1 19 173 "PQP1" "Precip > .01 in 6hr" "%"
0 10 0 255 57 1 19 176 "QP010" "Precip > .10 in 6hr" "%"
0 10 0 255 57 1 19 177 "QP025" "Precip > .25 in 6hr" "%"
0 10 0 255 57 1 19 178 "QP050" "Precip > .5 in 6hr" "%"
0 10 0 255 57 1 19 180 "QP100" "Precip > 1 in 6hr" "%"
0 10 0 255 57 1 6 143 "CIG500" "Ceilings < 500ft" "%"
0 10 0 255 57 1 6 144 "CIG1000" "Ceilings < 1000ft" "%"
0 10 0 255 57 1 6 145 "CIG3000" "Ceilings < 3000ft" "%"
0 10 0 255 57 1 19 204 "MCIG3000" "MEPS Ceiling < 3000ft" "%"
0 10 0 255 57 1 19 205 "MCIG1000" "MEPS Ceiling < 1000ft" "%"
0 10 0 255 57 1 19 206 "MCIG500" "MEPS Ceiling < 500ft" "%"
------------------------------------------------
Subject: Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
From: John Halley Gotway
Time: Wed Sep 23 09:27:16 2020
Bob,
OK, looking at the point observations in 2020080612.nc, I ran the
pntnc2ascii.R script to dump the obs to ascii to make them easier to
look
at:
Rscript share/met/Rscripts/pntnc2ascii.R 2020080612.nc >
2020080612.txt
It contains 783635 point observations. And here's the list of
variable
names present in the 7-th column:
> cat 2020080612.txt | awk '{print $7}' | sort -u | tr '\n' ', '
DPT,HGT,PRES,PRMSL,PRWE,RH,SPFH,TMP,TOCC,TP01,TP06,TP12,UGRD,VGRD,VIS,WDIR,WIND
And I see that only 9483 are observations of TP06:
> grep TP06 2020080612.txt | wc -l
9483
So the behavior you describe is correct. Point-Stat should reject the
VAST
majority of these point observations based on type. Only 9483 out of
783635
(about 1%) are observations of TP06.
I really don't know why you're seeing a timestamp of 2020 in file you
sent
named "grib.2020091500.0012". I double-checked by running wgrib on a
different machine. Both instance of wgrib agree that the timestamp of
the
data inside that file is 2009. See attached wgrib output. But I'll
leave it
to you to make sense of that.
Thanks,
John
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 9:13 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
>
> John, attached is our grib 2 file we are using. I should have sent
it
> earlier.
>
> Bob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 9:37 AM
> To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
<robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of
TP06
> field in Prepbufr data
>
> Bob,
>
> When I run with the data you sent, I get these warnings:
> WARNING: process_fcst_climo_files() -> no fields matching QP100/A006
found
> in file: grib.2020091500.0012
>
> I assume you're using a custom GRIB table which defines those
variable
> names: QP010, QP025, and so on
>
> Since I don't have that table and couldn't find one referencing
those
> variable names being used by the other DTC Air Force projects, I
used wgrib
> to see the accumulation intervals and range of values and make an
educated
> guess as to which records correspond to these variables.
>
> Since this is just for testing, it doesn't really matter, but here's
what I
> guessed:
> PQP1 = rec4 (name = UVI)
> QP010 = rec6 (name = HPBL)
> QP025 = rec7 (name = 5WAVH)
> QP050 = rec8 (name = CNWAT)
> QP100 = rec11 (name = BMIXL)
>
> So that's why you'll see these weird variable names in my Point-Stat
> config file. At verbosity level 3, I see the following reason
counts:
>
> DEBUG 2: Processing BMIXL/A006 versus TP06/A6, for observation type
> ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1), using
0
> matched pairs.
> DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 783635
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: station id = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 774152
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 9483
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality marker = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad fcst value = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad climo mean = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad climo stdev = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
>
> The order listed in these log messages matches the order of the
filtering
> logic applied. So we had 9483 obs discarded because of valid time.
That
> means we're not getting matches because of an offset in time.
>
> Running wgrib with the "-verf" option, I see:
>
> wgrib -verf grib.2020091500.0012| head -1
>
1:0:d=*20091512*:MSLSA:kpds5=128:kpds6=1:kpds7=0:TR=0:P1=12:P2=0:TimeU=1:sfc:12hr
> fcst:NAve=0
>
> While the timestamp listed in the filename is 2020, the timestamp
listed
> in the data is 2009. And that's why we're not getting matches.
>
> If this data really is from 2020 and you can modify the GRIB file,
you
> should correct it to say 2020. If you can't modify the GRIB file,
you could
> upgrade to met-9.1 and make use of the new "set_attr" options to
override
> the metadata of the file. If you look in the user's guide (
> https://dtcenter.github.io/MET/Users_Guide/data_io.html), and search
for
> "set_attr", you'll find the new config file options added in met-
9.1.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 2:50 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
> >
> > John,
> >
> > I tried your changes but I could not get it to work. I am sending
you
> > the probability file and the ob file. Our probability files
differ
> > from SREF so this should be a closer comparison. I tried
different
> > combinations of things in the met config file, even commenting out
the
> > climo stuff but still no good. Up until now, we have been using
our
> > own version of netcdf precip file and that works. But our data
has
> > very few precip obs over Africa so we need to switch to using the
> Prepbufr data for precip.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Bob
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 2:24 PM
> > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of
TP06
> > field in Prepbufr data
> >
> > Bob,
> >
> > OK, I was successful in getting matched pairs when comparing SREF
> > probabilities to the point observations you sent to me.
> >
> > Here's how I tested:
> >
> > - Pulled a sample SREF file from
> >
> >
https://nomads.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/data/nccf/com/sref/prod/sref.20200920
> > /09/ensprod/sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2
> >
> > - Ran point_stat like this:
> > /Volumes/d1/projects/MET/MET_development/MET-
main_v9.1/met/bin/point_s
> > tat \
> > sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2 2020080612.nc
PointStatConfig_sref
> > \ -outdir out -v 3
> >
> > Using the attached config file.
> >
> > And I see the following matching counts in the log messages:
> >
> > DEBUG 2: Processing PROB(APCP_06>6.350)/A06/PROB versus TP06/L0,
for
> > observation type ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation
method
> > NEAREST(1), using 5630 matched pairs.
> > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 5630
> > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 783635
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: station id = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 774152
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 3853
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > ...
> >
> > My config file has several changes:
> > - Different way of pulling forecast probabilities, specifying
"prob"
> > as a dictionary instead of a boolean.
> > - In the "obs" dictionary, I changed "level" from "A6" to "L0".
> > - In the "obs" dictionary, I changed the "cat_thresh" to be
consistent
> > with the forecast probabilities.
> > - I disabled the "climo_mean" entry since I don't have your data.
> > - I added a few 0's to the "obs_window" setting since the forecast
> > valid time doesn't match the time of the point observations.
> >
> > Anything in there that might help?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > John
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 10:00 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
> > >
> > > Sounds good.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 10:57 AM
> > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use
of
> > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > >
> > > Bob,
> > >
> > > Sorry for the delay. Yes, I pulled the 2020080612.nc file. I do
not
> > > have the file with your forecast probabilities.
> > > So I just grabbed a sample Short-Range Ensemble Forecast data
file
> > > from NOAA/EMC with which to test:
> > >
> > >
> > >
https://nomads.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/data/nccf/com/sref/prod/sref.202009
> > > 20
> > > /09/ensprod/sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2
> > >
> > > I have a couple of meetings this morning but will work on
setting up
> > > an example and get back to you later today.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > John
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 11:10 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT
<
> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
>
> > > >
> > > > No, still rejecting on obs. Hopefully I can get you the
netcdf ob
> > > > file on Monday. I will also send the config file I use for
PB2NC
> > > > to see if there are any setting in there not quite right.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Bob
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 11:22 AM
> > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use
of
> > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > >
> > > > Bob,
> > > >
> > > > Ah OK. I'm looking more closely at your Point-Stat config
file.
> > > >
> > > > You'll probably need to change:
> > > >
> > > > FROM:
> > > > obs = {
> > > > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > > > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> > > > sid_exc = [];
> > > > field = [
> > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh =>
.01;},
> > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh =>
.10;},
> > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh =>
.25;},
> > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh =>
.50;},
> > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => 1.0;}
> > > > ];
> > > > }
> > > > TO:
> > > > obs = {
> > > > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > > > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> > > > sid_exc = [];
> > > > field = [
> > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh =
>.01;},
> > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh =
>.10;},
> > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh =
>.25;},
> > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh =
>.50;},
> > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >1.0;}
> > > > ];
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > There are 2 small changes there. Replacing "A6" with "L0" and
> > > > getting rid of white-space between the ">" and the threshold
value.
> > > > The point observations do not include a way of indicating an
> > > > "accumulation
> > > interval".
> > > > I suspect that's why it's embedded in the variable name, where
> > > > TP06 means 6-hourly total precip.
> > > >
> > > > Please let me know if that produces better results.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 9:28 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via
RT <
> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
> > > > >
> > > > > John, Both the ADPSFC and SFCSHP have TP06 obs. The obs are
> > > > > being rejected due to obs type not message type. I will see
> > > > > what happened to
> > > > the
> > > > > DODsafe file. Hopefully I will know more by Monday.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 5:26 PM
> > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729]
Use
> > > > > of
> > > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob,
> > > > >
> > > > > I didn't see a DODSAFE message come through, and I'll be out
of
> > > > > the
> > > > office
> > > > > tomorrow.
> > > > >
> > > > > In your Point-Stat config file, I see that you're verifying
> > > > > against observations of type "ADPSFC":
> > > > >
> > > > > obs = {
> > > > > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > > > > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> > > > > ...
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > So we just need to figure out if the PTYPE obs have that
message
> > type.
> > > > > Run plot_point_obs using the "-obs_var TP06 -msg_typ ADPSFC"
> > > > > options. If there we get some red dots on the output, then
we've
> > > > > got the correct message type. If not, you'll need to figure
out
> > > > > the message type used for
> > > > > TP06 obs and request that in the Point-Stat configuration
file
> > instead.
> > > > >
> > > > > When you run Point-Stat be sure to continue using the "-v 3"
> > > > > option to
> > > > dump
> > > > > out counts of reason codes for why observations were or were
not
> > > > > used in the verification.
> > > > >
> > > > > John
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 1:51 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via
RT
> > > > > < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John, I was able to plot the data in plot_point_obs so the
> > > > > > data is
> > > > there.
> > > > > > Digging in to the NETCDF file which contains the data, I
see
> > > > > > there are three message types (ADPSFC,ADPUPR, SFCSHP). In
my
> > > > > > config file
> > > > > (attached)
> > > > > > I leave the message type field empty which I thought means
use
> > > > > > them
> > > > all.
> > > > > > Using ncdump to peer into the file, I can see where in
the
> > > > > > variable
> > > > TP06
> > > > > > is in the file (variable number 14). I sent the netcdf
file
> > > > > > via
> > > > DODSAFE.
> > > > > > Any other things I should check?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > Bob
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 5:06 PM
> > > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > >
> > > > > > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use
of
> > > > > > TP06
> > > > field
> > > > > > in Prepbufr data
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bob,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nothing immediately jumps out at me as an obvious problem.
> > > > > > There's
> > > > really
> > > > > > multiple steps occurring here:
> > > > > > (1) Configure/run pb2nc and retain TP06 observations.
> > > > > > (2) Configure/run point_stat to verify against those
> observations.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd recommend making sure that (1) works as expected. You
> > > > > > could do so,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > running plot_point_obs on the output from pb2nc. Use the
> > > > > > "-obs_var
> > > > TP06"
> > > > > > command line option to only process observations of that
type.
> > > > > > If there are red dots in the output postscript image, then
you
> > > > > > know you
> > > > > successfully
> > > > > > retained them. If not, then you need to work on the PB2NC
> > > > configuration.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Once you know (1) is working, run (2). I don't know what
> > > "message_type"
> > > > > is
> > > > > > used for TP06 observations. So we'll need to figure that
out
> > > > > > and
> > > > request
> > > > > > that message type in the Point-Stat config file.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please let me know how it goes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > John
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 3:18 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
via
> > > > > > RT < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tue Sep 15 15:18:49 2020: Request 96729 was acted upon.
> > > > > > > Transaction: Ticket created by robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > > Queue: met_help
> > > > > > > Subject: Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > > > > Owner: Nobody
> > > > > > > Requestors: robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > > Status: new
> > > > > > > Ticket <URL:
> > > > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John, I am exploring using the TP06 field in Prepbufr
data
> > > > > > > for
> > > 6hour
> > > > > > > precip. When I run point stat using TP06 for ob name
and A6
> for
> > > > > level,
> > > > > > > met rejects them for ob type. What do people typically
use
> > > > > > > for
> > > TP06.
> > > > > > > I will send a prepbufr file to you tomorrow that I am
using.
> > > > > > > Any
> > > > idea
> > > > > > > what might be wrong?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
From: robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
Time: Wed Sep 23 09:57:12 2020
John, I am not seeing a time stamp of 2020 in grib.2020091500.0012 - I
am seeing what you see. What I was saying is the MPR files where I
verify this model data against obs, the MPR valid time lines have the
correct dates in them (I attached one) - MET seemed to handle the time
format of the model file okay. Below is the listing I get when
running point stat on this data. All obs are being rejected due to
obs type.
DEBUG 2:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEBUG 2:
DEBUG 2: Searching 12611 observations from 12611 messages.
DEBUG 2:
DEBUG 2:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEBUG 2:
DEBUG 2: Processing PQP1/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation type
ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1), using 0
pairs.
DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality marker = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad fcst value = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
DEBUG 2:
DEBUG 2:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEBUG 2:
DEBUG 2: Processing QP010/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation type
ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1), using 0
pairs.
DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality marker = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad fcst value = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
DEBUG 2:
DEBUG 2:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEBUG 2:
DEBUG 2: Processing QP025/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation type
ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1), using 0
pairs.
DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality marker = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad fcst value = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
DEBUG 2:
DEBUG 2:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEBUG 2:
DEBUG 2: Processing QP050/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation type
ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1), using 0
pairs.
DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality marker = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad fcst value = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
DEBUG 2:
DEBUG 2:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEBUG 2:
DEBUG 2: Processing QP100/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation type
ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1), using 0
pairs.
DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality marker = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad fcst value = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
DEBUG 2:
DEBUG 2:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEBUG 2:
DEBUG 1: Output file:
/h/data/global/WXQC/data/met/ptstat/mdlob_pairs/meps/TP/point_stat_meps_cont6_060000L_20200915_060000V.stat
DEBUG 1: Output file:
/h/data/global/WXQC/data/met/ptstat/mdlob_pairs/meps/TP/point_stat_meps_cont6_060000L_20200915_060000V_pct.txt
DEBUG 1: Output file:
/h/data/global/WXQC/data/met/ptstat/mdlob_pairs/meps/TP/point_stat_meps_cont6_060000L_20200915_060000V_pstd.txt
Processing 12hour
-----Original Message-----
From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 10:27 AM
To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
<robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of TP06
field in Prepbufr data
Bob,
OK, looking at the point observations in 2020080612.nc, I ran the
pntnc2ascii.R script to dump the obs to ascii to make them easier to
look
at:
Rscript share/met/Rscripts/pntnc2ascii.R 2020080612.nc >
2020080612.txt
It contains 783635 point observations. And here's the list of
variable names present in the 7-th column:
> cat 2020080612.txt | awk '{print $7}' | sort -u | tr '\n' ', '
DPT,HGT,PRES,PRMSL,PRWE,RH,SPFH,TMP,TOCC,TP01,TP06,TP12,UGRD,VGRD,VIS,WDIR,WIND
And I see that only 9483 are observations of TP06:
> grep TP06 2020080612.txt | wc -l
9483
So the behavior you describe is correct. Point-Stat should reject the
VAST majority of these point observations based on type. Only 9483 out
of 783635 (about 1%) are observations of TP06.
I really don't know why you're seeing a timestamp of 2020 in file you
sent named "grib.2020091500.0012". I double-checked by running wgrib
on a different machine. Both instance of wgrib agree that the
timestamp of the data inside that file is 2009. See attached wgrib
output. But I'll leave it to you to make sense of that.
Thanks,
John
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 9:13 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
>
> John, attached is our grib 2 file we are using. I should have sent
it
> earlier.
>
> Bob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 9:37 AM
> To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of
TP06
> field in Prepbufr data
>
> Bob,
>
> When I run with the data you sent, I get these warnings:
> WARNING: process_fcst_climo_files() -> no fields matching QP100/A006
> found in file: grib.2020091500.0012
>
> I assume you're using a custom GRIB table which defines those
variable
> names: QP010, QP025, and so on
>
> Since I don't have that table and couldn't find one referencing
those
> variable names being used by the other DTC Air Force projects, I
used
> wgrib to see the accumulation intervals and range of values and make
> an educated guess as to which records correspond to these variables.
>
> Since this is just for testing, it doesn't really matter, but here's
> what I
> guessed:
> PQP1 = rec4 (name = UVI)
> QP010 = rec6 (name = HPBL)
> QP025 = rec7 (name = 5WAVH)
> QP050 = rec8 (name = CNWAT)
> QP100 = rec11 (name = BMIXL)
>
> So that's why you'll see these weird variable names in my Point-Stat
> config file. At verbosity level 3, I see the following reason
counts:
>
> DEBUG 2: Processing BMIXL/A006 versus TP06/A6, for observation type
> ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1), using
0
> matched pairs.
> DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 783635
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: station id = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 774152
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 9483
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality
> marker = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad fcst
> value = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad climo mean = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected:
> bad climo stdev = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
>
> The order listed in these log messages matches the order of the
> filtering logic applied. So we had 9483 obs discarded because of
valid
> time. That means we're not getting matches because of an offset in
time.
>
> Running wgrib with the "-verf" option, I see:
>
> wgrib -verf grib.2020091500.0012| head -1
>
1:0:d=*20091512*:MSLSA:kpds5=128:kpds6=1:kpds7=0:TR=0:P1=12:P2=0:TimeU
> =1:sfc:12hr
> fcst:NAve=0
>
> While the timestamp listed in the filename is 2020, the timestamp
> listed in the data is 2009. And that's why we're not getting
matches.
>
> If this data really is from 2020 and you can modify the GRIB file,
you
> should correct it to say 2020. If you can't modify the GRIB file,
you
> could upgrade to met-9.1 and make use of the new "set_attr" options
to
> override the metadata of the file. If you look in the user's guide (
> https://dtcenter.github.io/MET/Users_Guide/data_io.html), and search
> for "set_attr", you'll find the new config file options added in
met-9.1.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 2:50 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
> >
> > John,
> >
> > I tried your changes but I could not get it to work. I am sending
> > you the probability file and the ob file. Our probability files
> > differ from SREF so this should be a closer comparison. I tried
> > different combinations of things in the met config file, even
> > commenting out the climo stuff but still no good. Up until now,
we
> > have been using our own version of netcdf precip file and that
> > works. But our data has very few precip obs over Africa so we
need
> > to switch to using the
> Prepbufr data for precip.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Bob
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 2:24 PM
> > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of
> > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> >
> > Bob,
> >
> > OK, I was successful in getting matched pairs when comparing SREF
> > probabilities to the point observations you sent to me.
> >
> > Here's how I tested:
> >
> > - Pulled a sample SREF file from
> >
> >
https://nomads.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/data/nccf/com/sref/prod/sref.202009
> > 20
> > /09/ensprod/sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2
> >
> > - Ran point_stat like this:
> > /Volumes/d1/projects/MET/MET_development/MET-
main_v9.1/met/bin/point
> > _s
> > tat \
> > sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2 2020080612.nc
> > PointStatConfig_sref \ -outdir out -v 3
> >
> > Using the attached config file.
> >
> > And I see the following matching counts in the log messages:
> >
> > DEBUG 2: Processing PROB(APCP_06>6.350)/A06/PROB versus TP06/L0,
for
> > observation type ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation
method
> > NEAREST(1), using 5630 matched pairs.
> > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 5630
> > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 783635
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: station id = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 774152
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 3853
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > ...
> >
> > My config file has several changes:
> > - Different way of pulling forecast probabilities, specifying
"prob"
> > as a dictionary instead of a boolean.
> > - In the "obs" dictionary, I changed "level" from "A6" to "L0".
> > - In the "obs" dictionary, I changed the "cat_thresh" to be
> > consistent with the forecast probabilities.
> > - I disabled the "climo_mean" entry since I don't have your data.
> > - I added a few 0's to the "obs_window" setting since the forecast
> > valid time doesn't match the time of the point observations.
> >
> > Anything in there that might help?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > John
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 10:00 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
> > >
> > > Sounds good.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 10:57 AM
> > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use
of
> > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > >
> > > Bob,
> > >
> > > Sorry for the delay. Yes, I pulled the 2020080612.nc file. I do
> > > not have the file with your forecast probabilities.
> > > So I just grabbed a sample Short-Range Ensemble Forecast data
file
> > > from NOAA/EMC with which to test:
> > >
> > >
> > >
https://nomads.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/data/nccf/com/sref/prod/sref.2020
> > > 09
> > > 20
> > > /09/ensprod/sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2
> > >
> > > I have a couple of meetings this morning but will work on
setting
> > > up an example and get back to you later today.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > John
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 11:10 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT
<
> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
>
> > > >
> > > > No, still rejecting on obs. Hopefully I can get you the
netcdf
> > > > ob file on Monday. I will also send the config file I use for
> > > > PB2NC to see if there are any setting in there not quite
right.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Bob
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 11:22 AM
> > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use
> > > > of
> > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > >
> > > > Bob,
> > > >
> > > > Ah OK. I'm looking more closely at your Point-Stat config
file.
> > > >
> > > > You'll probably need to change:
> > > >
> > > > FROM:
> > > > obs = {
> > > > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > > > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> > > > sid_exc = [];
> > > > field = [
> > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh =>
.01;},
> > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh =>
.10;},
> > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh =>
.25;},
> > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh =>
.50;},
> > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh => 1.0;}
> > > > ];
> > > > }
> > > > TO:
> > > > obs = {
> > > > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > > > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> > > > sid_exc = [];
> > > > field = [
> > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh =
>.01;},
> > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh =
>.10;},
> > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh =
>.25;},
> > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh =
>.50;},
> > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh = >1.0;}
> > > > ];
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > There are 2 small changes there. Replacing "A6" with "L0" and
> > > > getting rid of white-space between the ">" and the threshold
value.
> > > > The point observations do not include a way of indicating an
> > > > "accumulation
> > > interval".
> > > > I suspect that's why it's embedded in the variable name, where
> > > > TP06 means 6-hourly total precip.
> > > >
> > > > Please let me know if that produces better results.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 9:28 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via
RT
> > > > < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > John, Both the ADPSFC and SFCSHP have TP06 obs. The obs are
> > > > > being rejected due to obs type not message type. I will see
> > > > > what happened to
> > > > the
> > > > > DODsafe file. Hopefully I will know more by Monday.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 5:26 PM
> > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729]
Use
> > > > > of
> > > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob,
> > > > >
> > > > > I didn't see a DODSAFE message come through, and I'll be out
> > > > > of the
> > > > office
> > > > > tomorrow.
> > > > >
> > > > > In your Point-Stat config file, I see that you're verifying
> > > > > against observations of type "ADPSFC":
> > > > >
> > > > > obs = {
> > > > > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > > > > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ]; ...
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > So we just need to figure out if the PTYPE obs have that
> > > > > message
> > type.
> > > > > Run plot_point_obs using the "-obs_var TP06 -msg_typ ADPSFC"
> > > > > options. If there we get some red dots on the output, then
> > > > > we've got the correct message type. If not, you'll need to
> > > > > figure out the message type used for
> > > > > TP06 obs and request that in the Point-Stat configuration
file
> > instead.
> > > > >
> > > > > When you run Point-Stat be sure to continue using the "-v 3"
> > > > > option to
> > > > dump
> > > > > out counts of reason codes for why observations were or were
> > > > > not used in the verification.
> > > > >
> > > > > John
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 1:51 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via
> > > > > RT < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <URL:
> > > > > > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John, I was able to plot the data in plot_point_obs so the
> > > > > > data is
> > > > there.
> > > > > > Digging in to the NETCDF file which contains the data, I
see
> > > > > > there are three message types (ADPSFC,ADPUPR, SFCSHP). In
> > > > > > my config file
> > > > > (attached)
> > > > > > I leave the message type field empty which I thought means
> > > > > > use them
> > > > all.
> > > > > > Using ncdump to peer into the file, I can see where in
the
> > > > > > variable
> > > > TP06
> > > > > > is in the file (variable number 14). I sent the netcdf
file
> > > > > > via
> > > > DODSAFE.
> > > > > > Any other things I should check?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > Bob
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 5:06 PM
> > > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > >
> > > > > > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > TP06
> > > > field
> > > > > > in Prepbufr data
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bob,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nothing immediately jumps out at me as an obvious problem.
> > > > > > There's
> > > > really
> > > > > > multiple steps occurring here:
> > > > > > (1) Configure/run pb2nc and retain TP06 observations.
> > > > > > (2) Configure/run point_stat to verify against those
> observations.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd recommend making sure that (1) works as expected. You
> > > > > > could do so,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > running plot_point_obs on the output from pb2nc. Use the
> > > > > > "-obs_var
> > > > TP06"
> > > > > > command line option to only process observations of that
type.
> > > > > > If there are red dots in the output postscript image, then
> > > > > > you know you
> > > > > successfully
> > > > > > retained them. If not, then you need to work on the PB2NC
> > > > configuration.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Once you know (1) is working, run (2). I don't know what
> > > "message_type"
> > > > > is
> > > > > > used for TP06 observations. So we'll need to figure that
out
> > > > > > and
> > > > request
> > > > > > that message type in the Point-Stat config file.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please let me know how it goes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > John
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 3:18 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
via
> > > > > > RT < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tue Sep 15 15:18:49 2020: Request 96729 was acted upon.
> > > > > > > Transaction: Ticket created by robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > > Queue: met_help
> > > > > > > Subject: Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > > > > Owner: Nobody
> > > > > > > Requestors: robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > > Status: new
> > > > > > > Ticket <URL:
> > > > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John, I am exploring using the TP06 field in Prepbufr
data
> > > > > > > for
> > > 6hour
> > > > > > > precip. When I run point stat using TP06 for ob name
and A6
> for
> > > > > level,
> > > > > > > met rejects them for ob type. What do people typically
> > > > > > > use for
> > > TP06.
> > > > > > > I will send a prepbufr file to you tomorrow that I am
using.
> > > > > > > Any
> > > > idea
> > > > > > > what might be wrong?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
From: John Halley Gotway
Time: Wed Sep 23 10:25:28 2020
Bob,
I think we have a disconnect here.
The point observation file you sent to me is named "2020080612.nc" and
contains 783635 observations.
ncdump -h 2020080612.nc | grep nobs
nobs = 783635 ;
But clearly that's not the file you're using in your testing. If it
were,
we'd see a log message stating:
Observations processed = 783635
So I don't think I'm testing the data you're actually using.
John
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 9:57 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
>
> John, I am not seeing a time stamp of 2020 in grib.2020091500.0012 -
I am
> seeing what you see. What I was saying is the MPR files where I
verify
> this model data against obs, the MPR valid time lines have the
correct
> dates in them (I attached one) - MET seemed to handle the time
format of
> the model file okay. Below is the listing I get when running point
stat
> on this data. All obs are being rejected due to obs type.
>
> DEBUG 2:
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> DEBUG 2:
> DEBUG 2: Searching 12611 observations from 12611 messages.
> DEBUG 2:
> DEBUG 2:
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> DEBUG 2:
> DEBUG 2: Processing PQP1/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation type
ADPSFC,
> over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1), using 0
pairs.
> DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality marker = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad fcst value = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> DEBUG 2:
> DEBUG 2:
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> DEBUG 2:
> DEBUG 2: Processing QP010/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation type
ADPSFC,
> over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1), using 0
pairs.
> DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality marker = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad fcst value = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> DEBUG 2:
> DEBUG 2:
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> DEBUG 2:
> DEBUG 2: Processing QP025/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation type
ADPSFC,
> over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1), using 0
pairs.
> DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality marker = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad fcst value = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> DEBUG 2:
> DEBUG 2:
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> DEBUG 2:
> DEBUG 2: Processing QP050/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation type
ADPSFC,
> over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1), using 0
pairs.
> DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality marker = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad fcst value = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> DEBUG 2:
> DEBUG 2:
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> DEBUG 2:
> DEBUG 2: Processing QP100/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation type
ADPSFC,
> over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1), using 0
pairs.
> DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality marker = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad fcst value = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> DEBUG 2:
> DEBUG 2:
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> DEBUG 2:
> DEBUG 1: Output file:
>
/h/data/global/WXQC/data/met/ptstat/mdlob_pairs/meps/TP/point_stat_meps_cont6_060000L_20200915_060000V.stat
> DEBUG 1: Output file:
>
/h/data/global/WXQC/data/met/ptstat/mdlob_pairs/meps/TP/point_stat_meps_cont6_060000L_20200915_060000V_pct.txt
> DEBUG 1: Output file:
>
/h/data/global/WXQC/data/met/ptstat/mdlob_pairs/meps/TP/point_stat_meps_cont6_060000L_20200915_060000V_pstd.txt
> Processing 12hour
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 10:27 AM
> To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
<robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of
TP06
> field in Prepbufr data
>
> Bob,
>
> OK, looking at the point observations in 2020080612.nc, I ran the
> pntnc2ascii.R script to dump the obs to ascii to make them easier to
look
> at:
>
> Rscript share/met/Rscripts/pntnc2ascii.R 2020080612.nc >
2020080612.txt
>
> It contains 783635 point observations. And here's the list of
variable
> names present in the 7-th column:
>
> > cat 2020080612.txt | awk '{print $7}' | sort -u | tr '\n' ', '
>
>
DPT,HGT,PRES,PRMSL,PRWE,RH,SPFH,TMP,TOCC,TP01,TP06,TP12,UGRD,VGRD,VIS,WDIR,WIND
>
> And I see that only 9483 are observations of TP06:
> > grep TP06 2020080612.txt | wc -l
> 9483
>
> So the behavior you describe is correct. Point-Stat should reject
the VAST
> majority of these point observations based on type. Only 9483 out of
783635
> (about 1%) are observations of TP06.
>
> I really don't know why you're seeing a timestamp of 2020 in file
you sent
> named "grib.2020091500.0012". I double-checked by running wgrib on a
> different machine. Both instance of wgrib agree that the timestamp
of the
> data inside that file is 2009. See attached wgrib output. But I'll
leave it
> to you to make sense of that.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 9:13 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
> >
> > John, attached is our grib 2 file we are using. I should have
sent it
> > earlier.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 9:37 AM
> > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of
TP06
> > field in Prepbufr data
> >
> > Bob,
> >
> > When I run with the data you sent, I get these warnings:
> > WARNING: process_fcst_climo_files() -> no fields matching
QP100/A006
> > found in file: grib.2020091500.0012
> >
> > I assume you're using a custom GRIB table which defines those
variable
> > names: QP010, QP025, and so on
> >
> > Since I don't have that table and couldn't find one referencing
those
> > variable names being used by the other DTC Air Force projects, I
used
> > wgrib to see the accumulation intervals and range of values and
make
> > an educated guess as to which records correspond to these
variables.
> >
> > Since this is just for testing, it doesn't really matter, but
here's
> > what I
> > guessed:
> > PQP1 = rec4 (name = UVI)
> > QP010 = rec6 (name = HPBL)
> > QP025 = rec7 (name = 5WAVH)
> > QP050 = rec8 (name = CNWAT)
> > QP100 = rec11 (name = BMIXL)
> >
> > So that's why you'll see these weird variable names in my Point-
Stat
> > config file. At verbosity level 3, I see the following reason
counts:
> >
> > DEBUG 2: Processing BMIXL/A006 versus TP06/A6, for observation
type
> > ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1),
using 0
> > matched pairs.
> > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 783635
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: station id = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 774152
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 9483
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality
> > marker = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad fcst
> > value = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad climo mean = 0 DEBUG 3:
Rejected:
> > bad climo stdev = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> >
> > The order listed in these log messages matches the order of the
> > filtering logic applied. So we had 9483 obs discarded because of
valid
> > time. That means we're not getting matches because of an offset in
time.
> >
> > Running wgrib with the "-verf" option, I see:
> >
> > wgrib -verf grib.2020091500.0012| head -1
> >
1:0:d=*20091512*:MSLSA:kpds5=128:kpds6=1:kpds7=0:TR=0:P1=12:P2=0:TimeU
> > =1:sfc:12hr
> > fcst:NAve=0
> >
> > While the timestamp listed in the filename is 2020, the timestamp
> > listed in the data is 2009. And that's why we're not getting
matches.
> >
> > If this data really is from 2020 and you can modify the GRIB file,
you
> > should correct it to say 2020. If you can't modify the GRIB file,
you
> > could upgrade to met-9.1 and make use of the new "set_attr"
options to
> > override the metadata of the file. If you look in the user's guide
(
> > https://dtcenter.github.io/MET/Users_Guide/data_io.html), and
search
> > for "set_attr", you'll find the new config file options added in
met-9.1.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 2:50 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
> > >
> > > John,
> > >
> > > I tried your changes but I could not get it to work. I am
sending
> > > you the probability file and the ob file. Our probability files
> > > differ from SREF so this should be a closer comparison. I tried
> > > different combinations of things in the met config file, even
> > > commenting out the climo stuff but still no good. Up until now,
we
> > > have been using our own version of netcdf precip file and that
> > > works. But our data has very few precip obs over Africa so we
need
> > > to switch to using the
> > Prepbufr data for precip.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Bob
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 2:24 PM
> > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use
of
> > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > >
> > > Bob,
> > >
> > > OK, I was successful in getting matched pairs when comparing
SREF
> > > probabilities to the point observations you sent to me.
> > >
> > > Here's how I tested:
> > >
> > > - Pulled a sample SREF file from
> > >
> > >
https://nomads.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/data/nccf/com/sref/prod/sref.202009
> > > 20
> > > /09/ensprod/sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2
> > >
> > > - Ran point_stat like this:
> > > /Volumes/d1/projects/MET/MET_development/MET-
main_v9.1/met/bin/point
> > > _s
> > > tat \
> > > sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2 2020080612.nc
> > > PointStatConfig_sref \ -outdir out -v 3
> > >
> > > Using the attached config file.
> > >
> > > And I see the following matching counts in the log messages:
> > >
> > > DEBUG 2: Processing PROB(APCP_06>6.350)/A06/PROB versus TP06/L0,
for
> > > observation type ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation
method
> > > NEAREST(1), using 5630 matched pairs.
> > > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 5630
> > > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 783635
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: station id = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 774152
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 3853
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > > ...
> > >
> > > My config file has several changes:
> > > - Different way of pulling forecast probabilities, specifying
"prob"
> > > as a dictionary instead of a boolean.
> > > - In the "obs" dictionary, I changed "level" from "A6" to "L0".
> > > - In the "obs" dictionary, I changed the "cat_thresh" to be
> > > consistent with the forecast probabilities.
> > > - I disabled the "climo_mean" entry since I don't have your
data.
> > > - I added a few 0's to the "obs_window" setting since the
forecast
> > > valid time doesn't match the time of the point observations.
> > >
> > > Anything in there that might help?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > John
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 10:00 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT
<
> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
>
> > > >
> > > > Sounds good.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 10:57 AM
> > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use
of
> > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > >
> > > > Bob,
> > > >
> > > > Sorry for the delay. Yes, I pulled the 2020080612.nc file. I
do
> > > > not have the file with your forecast probabilities.
> > > > So I just grabbed a sample Short-Range Ensemble Forecast data
file
> > > > from NOAA/EMC with which to test:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
https://nomads.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/data/nccf/com/sref/prod/sref.2020
> > > > 09
> > > > 20
> > > > /09/ensprod/sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2
> > > >
> > > > I have a couple of meetings this morning but will work on
setting
> > > > up an example and get back to you later today.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 11:10 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via
RT <
> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
> > > > >
> > > > > No, still rejecting on obs. Hopefully I can get you the
netcdf
> > > > > ob file on Monday. I will also send the config file I use
for
> > > > > PB2NC to see if there are any setting in there not quite
right.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > Bob
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 11:22 AM
> > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729]
Use
> > > > > of
> > > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob,
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah OK. I'm looking more closely at your Point-Stat config
file.
> > > > >
> > > > > You'll probably need to change:
> > > > >
> > > > > FROM:
> > > > > obs = {
> > > > > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > > > > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> > > > > sid_exc = [];
> > > > > field = [
> > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh =>
.01;},
> > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh =>
.10;},
> > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh =>
.25;},
> > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh =>
.50;},
> > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh =>
1.0;}
> > > > > ];
> > > > > }
> > > > > TO:
> > > > > obs = {
> > > > > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > > > > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> > > > > sid_exc = [];
> > > > > field = [
> > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh =
>.01;},
> > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh =
>.10;},
> > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh =
>.25;},
> > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh =
>.50;},
> > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh =
>1.0;}
> > > > > ];
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > There are 2 small changes there. Replacing "A6" with "L0"
and
> > > > > getting rid of white-space between the ">" and the threshold
value.
> > > > > The point observations do not include a way of indicating an
> > > > > "accumulation
> > > > interval".
> > > > > I suspect that's why it's embedded in the variable name,
where
> > > > > TP06 means 6-hourly total precip.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please let me know if that produces better results.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > John
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 9:28 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via
RT
> > > > > < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John, Both the ADPSFC and SFCSHP have TP06 obs. The obs
are
> > > > > > being rejected due to obs type not message type. I will
see
> > > > > > what happened to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > DODsafe file. Hopefully I will know more by Monday.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bob
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 5:26 PM
> > > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729]
Use
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bob,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I didn't see a DODSAFE message come through, and I'll be
out
> > > > > > of the
> > > > > office
> > > > > > tomorrow.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In your Point-Stat config file, I see that you're
verifying
> > > > > > against observations of type "ADPSFC":
> > > > > >
> > > > > > obs = {
> > > > > > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > > > > > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ]; ...
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So we just need to figure out if the PTYPE obs have that
> > > > > > message
> > > type.
> > > > > > Run plot_point_obs using the "-obs_var TP06 -msg_typ
ADPSFC"
> > > > > > options. If there we get some red dots on the output, then
> > > > > > we've got the correct message type. If not, you'll need to
> > > > > > figure out the message type used for
> > > > > > TP06 obs and request that in the Point-Stat configuration
file
> > > instead.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When you run Point-Stat be sure to continue using the "-v
3"
> > > > > > option to
> > > > > dump
> > > > > > out counts of reason codes for why observations were or
were
> > > > > > not used in the verification.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 1:51 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
via
> > > > > > RT < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <URL:
> > > > > > > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John, I was able to plot the data in plot_point_obs so
the
> > > > > > > data is
> > > > > there.
> > > > > > > Digging in to the NETCDF file which contains the data, I
see
> > > > > > > there are three message types (ADPSFC,ADPUPR, SFCSHP).
In
> > > > > > > my config file
> > > > > > (attached)
> > > > > > > I leave the message type field empty which I thought
means
> > > > > > > use them
> > > > > all.
> > > > > > > Using ncdump to peer into the file, I can see where in
the
> > > > > > > variable
> > > > > TP06
> > > > > > > is in the file (variable number 14). I sent the netcdf
file
> > > > > > > via
> > > > > DODSAFE.
> > > > > > > Any other things I should check?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 5:06 PM
> > > > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729]
Use
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > TP06
> > > > > field
> > > > > > > in Prepbufr data
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bob,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nothing immediately jumps out at me as an obvious
problem.
> > > > > > > There's
> > > > > really
> > > > > > > multiple steps occurring here:
> > > > > > > (1) Configure/run pb2nc and retain TP06 observations.
> > > > > > > (2) Configure/run point_stat to verify against those
> > observations.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'd recommend making sure that (1) works as expected.
You
> > > > > > > could do so,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > running plot_point_obs on the output from pb2nc. Use the
> > > > > > > "-obs_var
> > > > > TP06"
> > > > > > > command line option to only process observations of that
type.
> > > > > > > If there are red dots in the output postscript image,
then
> > > > > > > you know you
> > > > > > successfully
> > > > > > > retained them. If not, then you need to work on the
PB2NC
> > > > > configuration.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Once you know (1) is working, run (2). I don't know what
> > > > "message_type"
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > used for TP06 observations. So we'll need to figure that
out
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > request
> > > > > > > that message type in the Point-Stat config file.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please let me know how it goes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > John
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 3:18 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
via
> > > > > > > RT < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Tue Sep 15 15:18:49 2020: Request 96729 was acted
upon.
> > > > > > > > Transaction: Ticket created by
robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > > > Queue: met_help
> > > > > > > > Subject: Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > > > > > Owner: Nobody
> > > > > > > > Requestors: robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > > > Status: new
> > > > > > > > Ticket <URL:
> > > > > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > John, I am exploring using the TP06 field in Prepbufr
data
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > 6hour
> > > > > > > > precip. When I run point stat using TP06 for ob name
and A6
> > for
> > > > > > level,
> > > > > > > > met rejects them for ob type. What do people
typically
> > > > > > > > use for
> > > > TP06.
> > > > > > > > I will send a prepbufr file to you tomorrow that I am
using.
> > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > what might be wrong?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
From: robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
Time: Wed Sep 23 11:47:41 2020
Okay, I got to files that should match sent via DOD safe.
-----Original Message-----
From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 11:25 AM
To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
<robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of TP06
field in Prepbufr data
Bob,
I think we have a disconnect here.
The point observation file you sent to me is named "2020080612.nc" and
contains 783635 observations.
ncdump -h 2020080612.nc | grep nobs
nobs = 783635 ;
But clearly that's not the file you're using in your testing. If it
were, we'd see a log message stating:
Observations processed = 783635
So I don't think I'm testing the data you're actually using.
John
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 9:57 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
>
> John, I am not seeing a time stamp of 2020 in grib.2020091500.0012 -
I
> am seeing what you see. What I was saying is the MPR files where I
> verify this model data against obs, the MPR valid time lines have
the
> correct dates in them (I attached one) - MET seemed to handle the
time format of
> the model file okay. Below is the listing I get when running point
stat
> on this data. All obs are being rejected due to obs type.
>
> DEBUG 2:
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> DEBUG 2:
> DEBUG 2: Searching 12611 observations from 12611 messages.
> DEBUG 2:
> DEBUG 2:
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> DEBUG 2:
> DEBUG 2: Processing PQP1/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation type
> ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1), using
0 pairs.
> DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality marker = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad fcst value = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> DEBUG 2:
> DEBUG 2:
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> DEBUG 2:
> DEBUG 2: Processing QP010/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation type
> ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1), using
0 pairs.
> DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality marker = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad fcst value = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> DEBUG 2:
> DEBUG 2:
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> DEBUG 2:
> DEBUG 2: Processing QP025/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation type
> ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1), using
0 pairs.
> DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality marker = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad fcst value = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> DEBUG 2:
> DEBUG 2:
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> DEBUG 2:
> DEBUG 2: Processing QP050/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation type
> ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1), using
0 pairs.
> DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality marker = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad fcst value = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> DEBUG 2:
> DEBUG 2:
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> DEBUG 2:
> DEBUG 2: Processing QP100/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation type
> ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1), using
0 pairs.
> DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality marker = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad fcst value = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> DEBUG 2:
> DEBUG 2:
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> DEBUG 2:
> DEBUG 1: Output file:
>
/h/data/global/WXQC/data/met/ptstat/mdlob_pairs/meps/TP/point_stat_mep
> s_cont6_060000L_20200915_060000V.stat
> DEBUG 1: Output file:
>
/h/data/global/WXQC/data/met/ptstat/mdlob_pairs/meps/TP/point_stat_mep
> s_cont6_060000L_20200915_060000V_pct.txt
> DEBUG 1: Output file:
>
/h/data/global/WXQC/data/met/ptstat/mdlob_pairs/meps/TP/point_stat_mep
> s_cont6_060000L_20200915_060000V_pstd.txt
> Processing 12hour
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 10:27 AM
> To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of
TP06
> field in Prepbufr data
>
> Bob,
>
> OK, looking at the point observations in 2020080612.nc, I ran the
> pntnc2ascii.R script to dump the obs to ascii to make them easier to
> look
> at:
>
> Rscript share/met/Rscripts/pntnc2ascii.R 2020080612.nc >
> 2020080612.txt
>
> It contains 783635 point observations. And here's the list of
> variable names present in the 7-th column:
>
> > cat 2020080612.txt | awk '{print $7}' | sort -u | tr '\n' ', '
>
>
DPT,HGT,PRES,PRMSL,PRWE,RH,SPFH,TMP,TOCC,TP01,TP06,TP12,UGRD,VGRD,VIS,
> WDIR,WIND
>
> And I see that only 9483 are observations of TP06:
> > grep TP06 2020080612.txt | wc -l
> 9483
>
> So the behavior you describe is correct. Point-Stat should reject
the
> VAST majority of these point observations based on type. Only 9483
out
> of 783635 (about 1%) are observations of TP06.
>
> I really don't know why you're seeing a timestamp of 2020 in file
you
> sent named "grib.2020091500.0012". I double-checked by running wgrib
> on a different machine. Both instance of wgrib agree that the
> timestamp of the data inside that file is 2009. See attached wgrib
> output. But I'll leave it to you to make sense of that.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 9:13 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
> >
> > John, attached is our grib 2 file we are using. I should have
sent
> > it earlier.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 9:37 AM
> > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of
> > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> >
> > Bob,
> >
> > When I run with the data you sent, I get these warnings:
> > WARNING: process_fcst_climo_files() -> no fields matching
QP100/A006
> > found in file: grib.2020091500.0012
> >
> > I assume you're using a custom GRIB table which defines those
> > variable
> > names: QP010, QP025, and so on
> >
> > Since I don't have that table and couldn't find one referencing
> > those variable names being used by the other DTC Air Force
projects,
> > I used wgrib to see the accumulation intervals and range of values
> > and make an educated guess as to which records correspond to these
variables.
> >
> > Since this is just for testing, it doesn't really matter, but
here's
> > what I
> > guessed:
> > PQP1 = rec4 (name = UVI)
> > QP010 = rec6 (name = HPBL)
> > QP025 = rec7 (name = 5WAVH)
> > QP050 = rec8 (name = CNWAT)
> > QP100 = rec11 (name = BMIXL)
> >
> > So that's why you'll see these weird variable names in my Point-
Stat
> > config file. At verbosity level 3, I see the following reason
counts:
> >
> > DEBUG 2: Processing BMIXL/A006 versus TP06/A6, for observation
type
> > ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1),
using
> > 0 matched pairs.
> > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 783635
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: station id = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 774152
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 9483
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality
> > marker = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad fcst
> > value = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad climo mean = 0 DEBUG 3:
Rejected:
> > bad climo stdev = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> >
> > The order listed in these log messages matches the order of the
> > filtering logic applied. So we had 9483 obs discarded because of
> > valid time. That means we're not getting matches because of an
offset in time.
> >
> > Running wgrib with the "-verf" option, I see:
> >
> > wgrib -verf grib.2020091500.0012| head -1
> >
1:0:d=*20091512*:MSLSA:kpds5=128:kpds6=1:kpds7=0:TR=0:P1=12:P2=0:Tim
> > eU
> > =1:sfc:12hr
> > fcst:NAve=0
> >
> > While the timestamp listed in the filename is 2020, the timestamp
> > listed in the data is 2009. And that's why we're not getting
matches.
> >
> > If this data really is from 2020 and you can modify the GRIB file,
> > you should correct it to say 2020. If you can't modify the GRIB
> > file, you could upgrade to met-9.1 and make use of the new
> > "set_attr" options to override the metadata of the file. If you
look
> > in the user's guide (
> > https://dtcenter.github.io/MET/Users_Guide/data_io.html), and
search for "set_attr", you'll find the new config file options added
in met-9.1.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 2:50 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
> > >
> > > John,
> > >
> > > I tried your changes but I could not get it to work. I am
sending
> > > you the probability file and the ob file. Our probability files
> > > differ from SREF so this should be a closer comparison. I tried
> > > different combinations of things in the met config file, even
> > > commenting out the climo stuff but still no good. Up until now,
> > > we have been using our own version of netcdf precip file and
that
> > > works. But our data has very few precip obs over Africa so we
> > > need to switch to using the
> > Prepbufr data for precip.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Bob
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 2:24 PM
> > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use
of
> > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > >
> > > Bob,
> > >
> > > OK, I was successful in getting matched pairs when comparing
SREF
> > > probabilities to the point observations you sent to me.
> > >
> > > Here's how I tested:
> > >
> > > - Pulled a sample SREF file from
> > >
> > >
https://nomads.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/data/nccf/com/sref/prod/sref.2020
> > > 09
> > > 20
> > > /09/ensprod/sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2
> > >
> > > - Ran point_stat like this:
> > > /Volumes/d1/projects/MET/MET_development/MET-
main_v9.1/met/bin/poi
> > > nt
> > > _s
> > > tat \
> > > sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2 2020080612.nc
> > > PointStatConfig_sref \ -outdir out -v 3
> > >
> > > Using the attached config file.
> > >
> > > And I see the following matching counts in the log messages:
> > >
> > > DEBUG 2: Processing PROB(APCP_06>6.350)/A06/PROB versus TP06/L0,
> > > for observation type ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation
> > > method NEAREST(1), using 5630 matched pairs.
> > > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 5630
> > > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 783635
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: station id = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 774152
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 3853
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > > ...
> > >
> > > My config file has several changes:
> > > - Different way of pulling forecast probabilities, specifying
"prob"
> > > as a dictionary instead of a boolean.
> > > - In the "obs" dictionary, I changed "level" from "A6" to "L0".
> > > - In the "obs" dictionary, I changed the "cat_thresh" to be
> > > consistent with the forecast probabilities.
> > > - I disabled the "climo_mean" entry since I don't have your
data.
> > > - I added a few 0's to the "obs_window" setting since the
forecast
> > > valid time doesn't match the time of the point observations.
> > >
> > > Anything in there that might help?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > John
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 10:00 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT
<
> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
>
> > > >
> > > > Sounds good.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 10:57 AM
> > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use
> > > > of
> > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > >
> > > > Bob,
> > > >
> > > > Sorry for the delay. Yes, I pulled the 2020080612.nc file. I
do
> > > > not have the file with your forecast probabilities.
> > > > So I just grabbed a sample Short-Range Ensemble Forecast data
> > > > file from NOAA/EMC with which to test:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
https://nomads.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/data/nccf/com/sref/prod/sref.20
> > > > 20
> > > > 09
> > > > 20
> > > > /09/ensprod/sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2
> > > >
> > > > I have a couple of meetings this morning but will work on
> > > > setting up an example and get back to you later today.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 11:10 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via
RT
> > > > < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > No, still rejecting on obs. Hopefully I can get you the
> > > > > netcdf ob file on Monday. I will also send the config file
I
> > > > > use for PB2NC to see if there are any setting in there not
quite right.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > Bob
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 11:22 AM
> > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729]
Use
> > > > > of
> > > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob,
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah OK. I'm looking more closely at your Point-Stat config
file.
> > > > >
> > > > > You'll probably need to change:
> > > > >
> > > > > FROM:
> > > > > obs = {
> > > > > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > > > > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> > > > > sid_exc = [];
> > > > > field = [
> > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh =>
.01;},
> > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh =>
.10;},
> > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh =>
.25;},
> > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh =>
.50;},
> > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh =>
1.0;}
> > > > > ];
> > > > > }
> > > > > TO:
> > > > > obs = {
> > > > > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > > > > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> > > > > sid_exc = [];
> > > > > field = [
> > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh =
>.01;},
> > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh =
>.10;},
> > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh =
>.25;},
> > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh =
>.50;},
> > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh =
>1.0;}
> > > > > ];
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > There are 2 small changes there. Replacing "A6" with "L0"
and
> > > > > getting rid of white-space between the ">" and the threshold
value.
> > > > > The point observations do not include a way of indicating an
> > > > > "accumulation
> > > > interval".
> > > > > I suspect that's why it's embedded in the variable name,
where
> > > > > TP06 means 6-hourly total precip.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please let me know if that produces better results.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > John
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 9:28 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via
> > > > > RT < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <URL:
> > > > > > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John, Both the ADPSFC and SFCSHP have TP06 obs. The obs
are
> > > > > > being rejected due to obs type not message type. I will
see
> > > > > > what happened to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > DODsafe file. Hopefully I will know more by Monday.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bob
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 5:26 PM
> > > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729]
> > > > > > Use of
> > > > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bob,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I didn't see a DODSAFE message come through, and I'll be
out
> > > > > > of the
> > > > > office
> > > > > > tomorrow.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In your Point-Stat config file, I see that you're
verifying
> > > > > > against observations of type "ADPSFC":
> > > > > >
> > > > > > obs = {
> > > > > > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > > > > > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ]; ...
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So we just need to figure out if the PTYPE obs have that
> > > > > > message
> > > type.
> > > > > > Run plot_point_obs using the "-obs_var TP06 -msg_typ
ADPSFC"
> > > > > > options. If there we get some red dots on the output, then
> > > > > > we've got the correct message type. If not, you'll need to
> > > > > > figure out the message type used for
> > > > > > TP06 obs and request that in the Point-Stat configuration
> > > > > > file
> > > instead.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When you run Point-Stat be sure to continue using the "-v
3"
> > > > > > option to
> > > > > dump
> > > > > > out counts of reason codes for why observations were or
were
> > > > > > not used in the verification.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 1:51 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
via
> > > > > > RT < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <URL:
> > > > > > > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John, I was able to plot the data in plot_point_obs so
the
> > > > > > > data is
> > > > > there.
> > > > > > > Digging in to the NETCDF file which contains the data, I
> > > > > > > see there are three message types (ADPSFC,ADPUPR,
SFCSHP).
> > > > > > > In my config file
> > > > > > (attached)
> > > > > > > I leave the message type field empty which I thought
means
> > > > > > > use them
> > > > > all.
> > > > > > > Using ncdump to peer into the file, I can see where in
> > > > > > > the variable
> > > > > TP06
> > > > > > > is in the file (variable number 14). I sent the netcdf
> > > > > > > file via
> > > > > DODSAFE.
> > > > > > > Any other things I should check?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 5:06 PM
> > > > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729]
Use
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > TP06
> > > > > field
> > > > > > > in Prepbufr data
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bob,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nothing immediately jumps out at me as an obvious
problem.
> > > > > > > There's
> > > > > really
> > > > > > > multiple steps occurring here:
> > > > > > > (1) Configure/run pb2nc and retain TP06 observations.
> > > > > > > (2) Configure/run point_stat to verify against those
> > observations.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'd recommend making sure that (1) works as expected.
You
> > > > > > > could do so,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > running plot_point_obs on the output from pb2nc. Use the
> > > > > > > "-obs_var
> > > > > TP06"
> > > > > > > command line option to only process observations of that
type.
> > > > > > > If there are red dots in the output postscript image,
then
> > > > > > > you know you
> > > > > > successfully
> > > > > > > retained them. If not, then you need to work on the
PB2NC
> > > > > configuration.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Once you know (1) is working, run (2). I don't know what
> > > > "message_type"
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > used for TP06 observations. So we'll need to figure that
> > > > > > > out and
> > > > > request
> > > > > > > that message type in the Point-Stat config file.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please let me know how it goes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > John
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 3:18 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > > via RT < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Tue Sep 15 15:18:49 2020: Request 96729 was acted
upon.
> > > > > > > > Transaction: Ticket created by
robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > > > Queue: met_help
> > > > > > > > Subject: Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > > > > > Owner: Nobody
> > > > > > > > Requestors: robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > > > Status: new
> > > > > > > > Ticket <URL:
> > > > > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > John, I am exploring using the TP06 field in Prepbufr
> > > > > > > > data for
> > > > 6hour
> > > > > > > > precip. When I run point stat using TP06 for ob name
and A6
> > for
> > > > > > level,
> > > > > > > > met rejects them for ob type. What do people
typically
> > > > > > > > use for
> > > > TP06.
> > > > > > > > I will send a prepbufr file to you tomorrow that I am
using.
> > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > what might be wrong?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
From: John Halley Gotway
Time: Wed Sep 23 12:33:00 2020
Bob,
Great, thanks for sending the updated data. The GRIB table doesn't
work
because you sent me the Air Force GRIB2 table but your data is GRIB1.
But
again, that doesn't really matter.
When I run Point-Stat version 8.1, I get 0 matched pairs with reason
codes
listed like this:
/Volumes/d1/projects/MET/MET_development/MET-
main_v8.1/met/bin/point_stat \
grib.2020091500.0024 \
2020091600.nc \
PointStatConfig_meps_tp_cont6_updated \
-outdir out -v 3
...
DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 758386
DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 750084
DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 8302
DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality marker = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad fcst value = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
...
Looking from the bottom up, I see that we discarded 8302 observations
that
were "off the grid". So perhaps it's the case that just none of the
observations fall inside your domain? Let's run plot_point_obs to
confirm.
First, plot TP06 observations from this file globally:
*plot_point_obs 2020091600.nc <http://2020091600.nc>
2020091600_global.ps
<http://2020091600_global.ps> -obs_var TP06*
Next, use the "-data_file" command line option to restrict to your
model
domain:
*plot_point_obs 2020091600.nc <http://2020091600.nc>
2020091600_model_domain.ps <http://2020091600_model_domain.ps>
-obs_var
TP06 -data_file grib.2020091500.0024*
PNG versions of the resulting images are attached. And that confirms
it.
There just aren't any TP06 observations that fall within your domain
on the
horn of Africa.
John
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 11:47 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
>
> Okay, I got to files that should match sent via DOD safe.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 11:25 AM
> To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
<robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of
TP06
> field in Prepbufr data
>
> Bob,
>
> I think we have a disconnect here.
>
> The point observation file you sent to me is named "2020080612.nc"
and
> contains 783635 observations.
>
> ncdump -h 2020080612.nc | grep nobs
> nobs = 783635 ;
>
> But clearly that's not the file you're using in your testing. If it
were,
> we'd see a log message stating:
> Observations processed = 783635
>
> So I don't think I'm testing the data you're actually using.
>
> John
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 9:57 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
> >
> > John, I am not seeing a time stamp of 2020 in grib.2020091500.0012
- I
> > am seeing what you see. What I was saying is the MPR files where
I
> > verify this model data against obs, the MPR valid time lines have
the
> > correct dates in them (I attached one) - MET seemed to handle the
time
> format of
> > the model file okay. Below is the listing I get when running
point stat
> > on this data. All obs are being rejected due to obs type.
> >
> > DEBUG 2:
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------
> > DEBUG 2:
> > DEBUG 2: Searching 12611 observations from 12611 messages.
> > DEBUG 2:
> > DEBUG 2:
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------
> > DEBUG 2:
> > DEBUG 2: Processing PQP1/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation type
> > ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1),
using 0
> pairs.
> > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality marker = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad fcst value = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > DEBUG 2:
> > DEBUG 2:
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------
> > DEBUG 2:
> > DEBUG 2: Processing QP010/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation type
> > ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1),
using 0
> pairs.
> > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality marker = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad fcst value = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > DEBUG 2:
> > DEBUG 2:
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------
> > DEBUG 2:
> > DEBUG 2: Processing QP025/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation type
> > ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1),
using 0
> pairs.
> > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality marker = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad fcst value = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > DEBUG 2:
> > DEBUG 2:
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------
> > DEBUG 2:
> > DEBUG 2: Processing QP050/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation type
> > ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1),
using 0
> pairs.
> > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality marker = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad fcst value = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > DEBUG 2:
> > DEBUG 2:
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------
> > DEBUG 2:
> > DEBUG 2: Processing QP100/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation type
> > ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1),
using 0
> pairs.
> > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality marker = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad fcst value = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > DEBUG 2:
> > DEBUG 2:
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------
> > DEBUG 2:
> > DEBUG 1: Output file:
> >
/h/data/global/WXQC/data/met/ptstat/mdlob_pairs/meps/TP/point_stat_mep
> > s_cont6_060000L_20200915_060000V.stat
> > DEBUG 1: Output file:
> >
/h/data/global/WXQC/data/met/ptstat/mdlob_pairs/meps/TP/point_stat_mep
> > s_cont6_060000L_20200915_060000V_pct.txt
> > DEBUG 1: Output file:
> >
/h/data/global/WXQC/data/met/ptstat/mdlob_pairs/meps/TP/point_stat_mep
> > s_cont6_060000L_20200915_060000V_pstd.txt
> > Processing 12hour
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 10:27 AM
> > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of
TP06
> > field in Prepbufr data
> >
> > Bob,
> >
> > OK, looking at the point observations in 2020080612.nc, I ran the
> > pntnc2ascii.R script to dump the obs to ascii to make them easier
to
> > look
> > at:
> >
> > Rscript share/met/Rscripts/pntnc2ascii.R 2020080612.nc >
> > 2020080612.txt
> >
> > It contains 783635 point observations. And here's the list of
> > variable names present in the 7-th column:
> >
> > > cat 2020080612.txt | awk '{print $7}' | sort -u | tr '\n' ', '
> >
> >
DPT,HGT,PRES,PRMSL,PRWE,RH,SPFH,TMP,TOCC,TP01,TP06,TP12,UGRD,VGRD,VIS,
> > WDIR,WIND
> >
> > And I see that only 9483 are observations of TP06:
> > > grep TP06 2020080612.txt | wc -l
> > 9483
> >
> > So the behavior you describe is correct. Point-Stat should reject
the
> > VAST majority of these point observations based on type. Only 9483
out
> > of 783635 (about 1%) are observations of TP06.
> >
> > I really don't know why you're seeing a timestamp of 2020 in file
you
> > sent named "grib.2020091500.0012". I double-checked by running
wgrib
> > on a different machine. Both instance of wgrib agree that the
> > timestamp of the data inside that file is 2009. See attached wgrib
> > output. But I'll leave it to you to make sense of that.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > John
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 9:13 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
> > >
> > > John, attached is our grib 2 file we are using. I should have
sent
> > > it earlier.
> > >
> > > Bob
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 9:37 AM
> > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use
of
> > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > >
> > > Bob,
> > >
> > > When I run with the data you sent, I get these warnings:
> > > WARNING: process_fcst_climo_files() -> no fields matching
QP100/A006
> > > found in file: grib.2020091500.0012
> > >
> > > I assume you're using a custom GRIB table which defines those
> > > variable
> > > names: QP010, QP025, and so on
> > >
> > > Since I don't have that table and couldn't find one referencing
> > > those variable names being used by the other DTC Air Force
projects,
> > > I used wgrib to see the accumulation intervals and range of
values
> > > and make an educated guess as to which records correspond to
these
> variables.
> > >
> > > Since this is just for testing, it doesn't really matter, but
here's
> > > what I
> > > guessed:
> > > PQP1 = rec4 (name = UVI)
> > > QP010 = rec6 (name = HPBL)
> > > QP025 = rec7 (name = 5WAVH)
> > > QP050 = rec8 (name = CNWAT)
> > > QP100 = rec11 (name = BMIXL)
> > >
> > > So that's why you'll see these weird variable names in my Point-
Stat
> > > config file. At verbosity level 3, I see the following reason
counts:
> > >
> > > DEBUG 2: Processing BMIXL/A006 versus TP06/A6, for observation
type
> > > ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1),
using
> > > 0 matched pairs.
> > > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 783635
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: station id = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 774152
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 9483
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected:
quality
> > > marker = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad
fcst
> > > value = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad climo mean = 0 DEBUG 3:
Rejected:
> > > bad climo stdev = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > >
> > > The order listed in these log messages matches the order of the
> > > filtering logic applied. So we had 9483 obs discarded because of
> > > valid time. That means we're not getting matches because of an
offset
> in time.
> > >
> > > Running wgrib with the "-verf" option, I see:
> > >
> > > wgrib -verf grib.2020091500.0012| head -1
> > >
1:0:d=*20091512*:MSLSA:kpds5=128:kpds6=1:kpds7=0:TR=0:P1=12:P2=0:Tim
> > > eU
> > > =1:sfc:12hr
> > > fcst:NAve=0
> > >
> > > While the timestamp listed in the filename is 2020, the
timestamp
> > > listed in the data is 2009. And that's why we're not getting
matches.
> > >
> > > If this data really is from 2020 and you can modify the GRIB
file,
> > > you should correct it to say 2020. If you can't modify the GRIB
> > > file, you could upgrade to met-9.1 and make use of the new
> > > "set_attr" options to override the metadata of the file. If you
look
> > > in the user's guide (
> > > https://dtcenter.github.io/MET/Users_Guide/data_io.html), and
search
> for "set_attr", you'll find the new config file options added in
met-9.1.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > John
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 2:50 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT
<
> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
>
> > > >
> > > > John,
> > > >
> > > > I tried your changes but I could not get it to work. I am
sending
> > > > you the probability file and the ob file. Our probability
files
> > > > differ from SREF so this should be a closer comparison. I
tried
> > > > different combinations of things in the met config file, even
> > > > commenting out the climo stuff but still no good. Up until
now,
> > > > we have been using our own version of netcdf precip file and
that
> > > > works. But our data has very few precip obs over Africa so we
> > > > need to switch to using the
> > > Prepbufr data for precip.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Bob
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 2:24 PM
> > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use
of
> > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > >
> > > > Bob,
> > > >
> > > > OK, I was successful in getting matched pairs when comparing
SREF
> > > > probabilities to the point observations you sent to me.
> > > >
> > > > Here's how I tested:
> > > >
> > > > - Pulled a sample SREF file from
> > > >
> > > >
https://nomads.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/data/nccf/com/sref/prod/sref.2020
> > > > 09
> > > > 20
> > > > /09/ensprod/sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2
> > > >
> > > > - Ran point_stat like this:
> > > > /Volumes/d1/projects/MET/MET_development/MET-
main_v9.1/met/bin/poi
> > > > nt
> > > > _s
> > > > tat \
> > > > sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2 2020080612.nc
> > > > PointStatConfig_sref \ -outdir out -v 3
> > > >
> > > > Using the attached config file.
> > > >
> > > > And I see the following matching counts in the log messages:
> > > >
> > > > DEBUG 2: Processing PROB(APCP_06>6.350)/A06/PROB versus
TP06/L0,
> > > > for observation type ADPSFC, over region FULL, for
interpolation
> > > > method NEAREST(1), using 5630 matched pairs.
> > > > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 5630
> > > > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 783635
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: station id = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 774152
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 3853
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > My config file has several changes:
> > > > - Different way of pulling forecast probabilities, specifying
"prob"
> > > > as a dictionary instead of a boolean.
> > > > - In the "obs" dictionary, I changed "level" from "A6" to
"L0".
> > > > - In the "obs" dictionary, I changed the "cat_thresh" to be
> > > > consistent with the forecast probabilities.
> > > > - I disabled the "climo_mean" entry since I don't have your
data.
> > > > - I added a few 0's to the "obs_window" setting since the
forecast
> > > > valid time doesn't match the time of the point observations.
> > > >
> > > > Anything in there that might help?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 10:00 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via
RT <
> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
> > > > >
> > > > > Sounds good.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 10:57 AM
> > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729]
Use
> > > > > of
> > > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob,
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry for the delay. Yes, I pulled the 2020080612.nc file. I
do
> > > > > not have the file with your forecast probabilities.
> > > > > So I just grabbed a sample Short-Range Ensemble Forecast
data
> > > > > file from NOAA/EMC with which to test:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
https://nomads.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/data/nccf/com/sref/prod/sref.20
> > > > > 20
> > > > > 09
> > > > > 20
> > > > > /09/ensprod/sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2
> > > > >
> > > > > I have a couple of meetings this morning but will work on
> > > > > setting up an example and get back to you later today.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > John
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 11:10 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
via RT
> > > > > < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, still rejecting on obs. Hopefully I can get you the
> > > > > > netcdf ob file on Monday. I will also send the config
file I
> > > > > > use for PB2NC to see if there are any setting in there not
quite
> right.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > Bob
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 11:22 AM
> > > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729]
Use
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bob,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ah OK. I'm looking more closely at your Point-Stat config
file.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You'll probably need to change:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > FROM:
> > > > > > obs = {
> > > > > > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > > > > > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> > > > > > sid_exc = [];
> > > > > > field = [
> > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh =>
.01;},
> > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh =>
.10;},
> > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh =>
.25;},
> > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh =>
.50;},
> > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh =>
1.0;}
> > > > > > ];
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > TO:
> > > > > > obs = {
> > > > > > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > > > > > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> > > > > > sid_exc = [];
> > > > > > field = [
> > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh =
>.01;},
> > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh =
>.10;},
> > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh =
>.25;},
> > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh =
>.50;},
> > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh =
>1.0;}
> > > > > > ];
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are 2 small changes there. Replacing "A6" with "L0"
and
> > > > > > getting rid of white-space between the ">" and the
threshold
> value.
> > > > > > The point observations do not include a way of indicating
an
> > > > > > "accumulation
> > > > > interval".
> > > > > > I suspect that's why it's embedded in the variable name,
where
> > > > > > TP06 means 6-hourly total precip.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please let me know if that produces better results.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > John
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 9:28 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
via
> > > > > > RT < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <URL:
> > > > > > > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John, Both the ADPSFC and SFCSHP have TP06 obs. The obs
are
> > > > > > > being rejected due to obs type not message type. I will
see
> > > > > > > what happened to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > DODsafe file. Hopefully I will know more by Monday.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 5:26 PM
> > > > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu
#96729]
> > > > > > > Use of
> > > > > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bob,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I didn't see a DODSAFE message come through, and I'll be
out
> > > > > > > of the
> > > > > > office
> > > > > > > tomorrow.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In your Point-Stat config file, I see that you're
verifying
> > > > > > > against observations of type "ADPSFC":
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > obs = {
> > > > > > > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > > > > > > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ]; ...
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So we just need to figure out if the PTYPE obs have that
> > > > > > > message
> > > > type.
> > > > > > > Run plot_point_obs using the "-obs_var TP06 -msg_typ
ADPSFC"
> > > > > > > options. If there we get some red dots on the output,
then
> > > > > > > we've got the correct message type. If not, you'll need
to
> > > > > > > figure out the message type used for
> > > > > > > TP06 obs and request that in the Point-Stat
configuration
> > > > > > > file
> > > > instead.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When you run Point-Stat be sure to continue using the "-
v 3"
> > > > > > > option to
> > > > > > dump
> > > > > > > out counts of reason codes for why observations were or
were
> > > > > > > not used in the verification.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 1:51 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
via
> > > > > > > RT < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > <URL:
> > > > > > > >
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > John, I was able to plot the data in plot_point_obs so
the
> > > > > > > > data is
> > > > > > there.
> > > > > > > > Digging in to the NETCDF file which contains the data,
I
> > > > > > > > see there are three message types (ADPSFC,ADPUPR,
SFCSHP).
> > > > > > > > In my config file
> > > > > > > (attached)
> > > > > > > > I leave the message type field empty which I thought
means
> > > > > > > > use them
> > > > > > all.
> > > > > > > > Using ncdump to peer into the file, I can see where
in
> > > > > > > > the variable
> > > > > > TP06
> > > > > > > > is in the file (variable number 14). I sent the
netcdf
> > > > > > > > file via
> > > > > > DODSAFE.
> > > > > > > > Any other things I should check?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 5:06 PM
> > > > > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729]
Use
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > TP06
> > > > > > field
> > > > > > > > in Prepbufr data
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Bob,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nothing immediately jumps out at me as an obvious
problem.
> > > > > > > > There's
> > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > multiple steps occurring here:
> > > > > > > > (1) Configure/run pb2nc and retain TP06 observations.
> > > > > > > > (2) Configure/run point_stat to verify against those
> > > observations.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'd recommend making sure that (1) works as expected.
You
> > > > > > > > could do so,
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > running plot_point_obs on the output from pb2nc. Use
the
> > > > > > > > "-obs_var
> > > > > > TP06"
> > > > > > > > command line option to only process observations of
that
> type.
> > > > > > > > If there are red dots in the output postscript image,
then
> > > > > > > > you know you
> > > > > > > successfully
> > > > > > > > retained them. If not, then you need to work on the
PB2NC
> > > > > > configuration.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Once you know (1) is working, run (2). I don't know
what
> > > > > "message_type"
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > used for TP06 observations. So we'll need to figure
that
> > > > > > > > out and
> > > > > > request
> > > > > > > > that message type in the Point-Stat config file.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Please let me know how it goes.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > John
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 3:18 PM
robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > > > via RT < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Tue Sep 15 15:18:49 2020: Request 96729 was acted
upon.
> > > > > > > > > Transaction: Ticket created by
robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > > > > Queue: met_help
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > > > > > > Owner: Nobody
> > > > > > > > > Requestors: robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > > > > Status: new
> > > > > > > > > Ticket <URL:
> > > > > > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > John, I am exploring using the TP06 field in
Prepbufr
> > > > > > > > > data for
> > > > > 6hour
> > > > > > > > > precip. When I run point stat using TP06 for ob
name and
> A6
> > > for
> > > > > > > level,
> > > > > > > > > met rejects them for ob type. What do people
typically
> > > > > > > > > use for
> > > > > TP06.
> > > > > > > > > I will send a prepbufr file to you tomorrow that I
am
> using.
> > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > > what might be wrong?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
From: robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
Time: Wed Sep 23 13:12:39 2020
John,
Okay I should have checked the domain - I thought it covered all of
Africa. It is interesting that you show 758386 obs processed. I get
a much lower number from the same file. We must have some differences
in our config files (I attached ours). Since your map shows lots of
TP06 obs over CONUS, I reran the verification for our CONUS domain
and get the same results - see below:
Processing PQP1/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation type ADPSFC, over
region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1), using 0 pairs.
DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12687
DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12687
DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality marker = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad fcst value = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
DEBUG 2:
I sent the CONUS version of the file to you. Attached is also our
grib 1 file incase that helps. I also plotted the data and that is
attached.
-----Original Message-----
From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 1:33 PM
To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
<robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of TP06
field in Prepbufr data
Bob,
Great, thanks for sending the updated data. The GRIB table doesn't
work because you sent me the Air Force GRIB2 table but your data is
GRIB1. But again, that doesn't really matter.
When I run Point-Stat version 8.1, I get 0 matched pairs with reason
codes listed like this:
/Volumes/d1/projects/MET/MET_development/MET-
main_v8.1/met/bin/point_stat \
grib.2020091500.0024 \
2020091600.nc \
PointStatConfig_meps_tp_cont6_updated \
-outdir out -v 3
...
DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 758386
DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 750084
DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 8302
DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality marker = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad fcst value = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
...
Looking from the bottom up, I see that we discarded 8302 observations
that were "off the grid". So perhaps it's the case that just none of
the observations fall inside your domain? Let's run plot_point_obs to
confirm.
First, plot TP06 observations from this file globally:
*plot_point_obs 2020091600.nc <http://2020091600.nc>
2020091600_global.ps <http://2020091600_global.ps> -obs_var TP06*
Next, use the "-data_file" command line option to restrict to your
model
domain:
*plot_point_obs 2020091600.nc <http://2020091600.nc>
2020091600_model_domain.ps <http://2020091600_model_domain.ps>
-obs_var
TP06 -data_file grib.2020091500.0024*
PNG versions of the resulting images are attached. And that confirms
it.
There just aren't any TP06 observations that fall within your domain
on the horn of Africa.
John
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 11:47 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
>
> Okay, I got to files that should match sent via DOD safe.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 11:25 AM
> To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of
TP06
> field in Prepbufr data
>
> Bob,
>
> I think we have a disconnect here.
>
> The point observation file you sent to me is named "2020080612.nc"
and
> contains 783635 observations.
>
> ncdump -h 2020080612.nc | grep nobs
> nobs = 783635 ;
>
> But clearly that's not the file you're using in your testing. If it
> were, we'd see a log message stating:
> Observations processed = 783635
>
> So I don't think I'm testing the data you're actually using.
>
> John
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 9:57 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
> >
> > John, I am not seeing a time stamp of 2020 in grib.2020091500.0012
-
> > I am seeing what you see. What I was saying is the MPR files
where
> > I verify this model data against obs, the MPR valid time lines
have
> > the correct dates in them (I attached one) - MET seemed to handle
> > the time
> format of
> > the model file okay. Below is the listing I get when running
point stat
> > on this data. All obs are being rejected due to obs type.
> >
> > DEBUG 2:
> >
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > ----------
> > DEBUG 2:
> > DEBUG 2: Searching 12611 observations from 12611 messages.
> > DEBUG 2:
> > DEBUG 2:
> >
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > ----------
> > DEBUG 2:
> > DEBUG 2: Processing PQP1/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation type
> > ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1),
using
> > 0
> pairs.
> > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality
> > marker = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad fcst
> > value = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > DEBUG 2:
> > DEBUG 2:
> >
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > ----------
> > DEBUG 2:
> > DEBUG 2: Processing QP010/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation type
> > ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1),
using
> > 0
> pairs.
> > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality
> > marker = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad fcst
> > value = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > DEBUG 2:
> > DEBUG 2:
> >
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > ----------
> > DEBUG 2:
> > DEBUG 2: Processing QP025/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation type
> > ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1),
using
> > 0
> pairs.
> > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality
> > marker = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad fcst
> > value = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > DEBUG 2:
> > DEBUG 2:
> >
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > ----------
> > DEBUG 2:
> > DEBUG 2: Processing QP050/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation type
> > ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1),
using
> > 0
> pairs.
> > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality
> > marker = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad fcst
> > value = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > DEBUG 2:
> > DEBUG 2:
> >
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > ----------
> > DEBUG 2:
> > DEBUG 2: Processing QP100/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation type
> > ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1),
using
> > 0
> pairs.
> > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality
> > marker = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad fcst
> > value = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > DEBUG 2:
> > DEBUG 2:
> >
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > ----------
> > DEBUG 2:
> > DEBUG 1: Output file:
> >
/h/data/global/WXQC/data/met/ptstat/mdlob_pairs/meps/TP/point_stat_m
> > ep s_cont6_060000L_20200915_060000V.stat
> > DEBUG 1: Output file:
> >
/h/data/global/WXQC/data/met/ptstat/mdlob_pairs/meps/TP/point_stat_m
> > ep s_cont6_060000L_20200915_060000V_pct.txt
> > DEBUG 1: Output file:
> >
/h/data/global/WXQC/data/met/ptstat/mdlob_pairs/meps/TP/point_stat_m
> > ep s_cont6_060000L_20200915_060000V_pstd.txt
> > Processing 12hour
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 10:27 AM
> > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of
> > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> >
> > Bob,
> >
> > OK, looking at the point observations in 2020080612.nc, I ran the
> > pntnc2ascii.R script to dump the obs to ascii to make them easier
to
> > look
> > at:
> >
> > Rscript share/met/Rscripts/pntnc2ascii.R 2020080612.nc >
> > 2020080612.txt
> >
> > It contains 783635 point observations. And here's the list of
> > variable names present in the 7-th column:
> >
> > > cat 2020080612.txt | awk '{print $7}' | sort -u | tr '\n' ', '
> >
> >
DPT,HGT,PRES,PRMSL,PRWE,RH,SPFH,TMP,TOCC,TP01,TP06,TP12,UGRD,VGRD,VI
> > S,
> > WDIR,WIND
> >
> > And I see that only 9483 are observations of TP06:
> > > grep TP06 2020080612.txt | wc -l
> > 9483
> >
> > So the behavior you describe is correct. Point-Stat should reject
> > the VAST majority of these point observations based on type. Only
> > 9483 out of 783635 (about 1%) are observations of TP06.
> >
> > I really don't know why you're seeing a timestamp of 2020 in file
> > you sent named "grib.2020091500.0012". I double-checked by running
> > wgrib on a different machine. Both instance of wgrib agree that
the
> > timestamp of the data inside that file is 2009. See attached wgrib
> > output. But I'll leave it to you to make sense of that.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > John
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 9:13 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
> > >
> > > John, attached is our grib 2 file we are using. I should have
> > > sent it earlier.
> > >
> > > Bob
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 9:37 AM
> > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use
of
> > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > >
> > > Bob,
> > >
> > > When I run with the data you sent, I get these warnings:
> > > WARNING: process_fcst_climo_files() -> no fields matching
> > > QP100/A006 found in file: grib.2020091500.0012
> > >
> > > I assume you're using a custom GRIB table which defines those
> > > variable
> > > names: QP010, QP025, and so on
> > >
> > > Since I don't have that table and couldn't find one referencing
> > > those variable names being used by the other DTC Air Force
> > > projects, I used wgrib to see the accumulation intervals and
range
> > > of values and make an educated guess as to which records
> > > correspond to these
> variables.
> > >
> > > Since this is just for testing, it doesn't really matter, but
> > > here's what I
> > > guessed:
> > > PQP1 = rec4 (name = UVI)
> > > QP010 = rec6 (name = HPBL)
> > > QP025 = rec7 (name = 5WAVH)
> > > QP050 = rec8 (name = CNWAT)
> > > QP100 = rec11 (name = BMIXL)
> > >
> > > So that's why you'll see these weird variable names in my
> > > Point-Stat config file. At verbosity level 3, I see the
following reason counts:
> > >
> > > DEBUG 2: Processing BMIXL/A006 versus TP06/A6, for observation
> > > type ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method
> > > NEAREST(1), using
> > > 0 matched pairs.
> > > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 783635
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: station id = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 774152
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 9483
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected:
quality
> > > marker = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad
fcst
> > > value = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad climo mean = 0 DEBUG 3:
Rejected:
> > > bad climo stdev = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > >
> > > The order listed in these log messages matches the order of the
> > > filtering logic applied. So we had 9483 obs discarded because of
> > > valid time. That means we're not getting matches because of an
> > > offset
> in time.
> > >
> > > Running wgrib with the "-verf" option, I see:
> > >
> > > wgrib -verf grib.2020091500.0012| head -1
> > >
1:0:d=*20091512*:MSLSA:kpds5=128:kpds6=1:kpds7=0:TR=0:P1=12:P2=0:T
> > > im
> > > eU
> > > =1:sfc:12hr
> > > fcst:NAve=0
> > >
> > > While the timestamp listed in the filename is 2020, the
timestamp
> > > listed in the data is 2009. And that's why we're not getting
matches.
> > >
> > > If this data really is from 2020 and you can modify the GRIB
file,
> > > you should correct it to say 2020. If you can't modify the GRIB
> > > file, you could upgrade to met-9.1 and make use of the new
> > > "set_attr" options to override the metadata of the file. If you
> > > look in the user's guide (
> > > https://dtcenter.github.io/MET/Users_Guide/data_io.html), and
> > > search
> for "set_attr", you'll find the new config file options added in
met-9.1.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > John
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 2:50 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT
<
> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
>
> > > >
> > > > John,
> > > >
> > > > I tried your changes but I could not get it to work. I am
> > > > sending you the probability file and the ob file. Our
> > > > probability files differ from SREF so this should be a closer
> > > > comparison. I tried different combinations of things in the
met
> > > > config file, even commenting out the climo stuff but still no
> > > > good. Up until now, we have been using our own version of
> > > > netcdf precip file and that works. But our data has very few
> > > > precip obs over Africa so we need to switch to using the
> > > Prepbufr data for precip.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Bob
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 2:24 PM
> > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use
> > > > of
> > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > >
> > > > Bob,
> > > >
> > > > OK, I was successful in getting matched pairs when comparing
> > > > SREF probabilities to the point observations you sent to me.
> > > >
> > > > Here's how I tested:
> > > >
> > > > - Pulled a sample SREF file from
> > > >
> > > >
https://nomads.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/data/nccf/com/sref/prod/sref.20
> > > > 20
> > > > 09
> > > > 20
> > > > /09/ensprod/sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2
> > > >
> > > > - Ran point_stat like this:
> > > > /Volumes/d1/projects/MET/MET_development/MET-
main_v9.1/met/bin/p
> > > > oi
> > > > nt
> > > > _s
> > > > tat \
> > > > sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2 2020080612.nc
> > > > PointStatConfig_sref \ -outdir out -v 3
> > > >
> > > > Using the attached config file.
> > > >
> > > > And I see the following matching counts in the log messages:
> > > >
> > > > DEBUG 2: Processing PROB(APCP_06>6.350)/A06/PROB versus
TP06/L0,
> > > > for observation type ADPSFC, over region FULL, for
interpolation
> > > > method NEAREST(1), using 5630 matched pairs.
> > > > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 5630
> > > > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 783635
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: station id = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 774152
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 3853
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > My config file has several changes:
> > > > - Different way of pulling forecast probabilities, specifying
"prob"
> > > > as a dictionary instead of a boolean.
> > > > - In the "obs" dictionary, I changed "level" from "A6" to
"L0".
> > > > - In the "obs" dictionary, I changed the "cat_thresh" to be
> > > > consistent with the forecast probabilities.
> > > > - I disabled the "climo_mean" entry since I don't have your
data.
> > > > - I added a few 0's to the "obs_window" setting since the
> > > > forecast valid time doesn't match the time of the point
observations.
> > > >
> > > > Anything in there that might help?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 10:00 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via
RT
> > > > < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Sounds good.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 10:57 AM
> > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729]
Use
> > > > > of
> > > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob,
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry for the delay. Yes, I pulled the 2020080612.nc file. I
> > > > > do not have the file with your forecast probabilities.
> > > > > So I just grabbed a sample Short-Range Ensemble Forecast
data
> > > > > file from NOAA/EMC with which to test:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
https://nomads.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/data/nccf/com/sref/prod/sref.
> > > > > 20
> > > > > 20
> > > > > 09
> > > > > 20
> > > > > /09/ensprod/sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2
> > > > >
> > > > > I have a couple of meetings this morning but will work on
> > > > > setting up an example and get back to you later today.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > John
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 11:10 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
via
> > > > > RT < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <URL:
> > > > > > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, still rejecting on obs. Hopefully I can get you the
> > > > > > netcdf ob file on Monday. I will also send the config
file
> > > > > > I use for PB2NC to see if there are any setting in there
not
> > > > > > quite
> right.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > Bob
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 11:22 AM
> > > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729]
> > > > > > Use of
> > > > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bob,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ah OK. I'm looking more closely at your Point-Stat config
file.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You'll probably need to change:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > FROM:
> > > > > > obs = {
> > > > > > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > > > > > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> > > > > > sid_exc = [];
> > > > > > field = [
> > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh =>
.01;},
> > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh =>
.10;},
> > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh =>
.25;},
> > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh =>
.50;},
> > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh =>
1.0;}
> > > > > > ];
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > TO:
> > > > > > obs = {
> > > > > > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > > > > > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> > > > > > sid_exc = [];
> > > > > > field = [
> > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh =
>.01;},
> > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh =
>.10;},
> > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh =
>.25;},
> > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh =
>.50;},
> > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh =
>1.0;}
> > > > > > ];
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are 2 small changes there. Replacing "A6" with "L0"
> > > > > > and getting rid of white-space between the ">" and the
> > > > > > threshold
> value.
> > > > > > The point observations do not include a way of indicating
an
> > > > > > "accumulation
> > > > > interval".
> > > > > > I suspect that's why it's embedded in the variable name,
> > > > > > where
> > > > > > TP06 means 6-hourly total precip.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please let me know if that produces better results.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > John
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 9:28 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
via
> > > > > > RT < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <URL:
> > > > > > > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John, Both the ADPSFC and SFCSHP have TP06 obs. The obs
> > > > > > > are being rejected due to obs type not message type. I
> > > > > > > will see what happened to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > DODsafe file. Hopefully I will know more by Monday.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 5:26 PM
> > > > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu
#96729]
> > > > > > > Use of
> > > > > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bob,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I didn't see a DODSAFE message come through, and I'll be
> > > > > > > out of the
> > > > > > office
> > > > > > > tomorrow.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In your Point-Stat config file, I see that you're
> > > > > > > verifying against observations of type "ADPSFC":
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > obs = {
> > > > > > > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > > > > > > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ]; ...
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So we just need to figure out if the PTYPE obs have that
> > > > > > > message
> > > > type.
> > > > > > > Run plot_point_obs using the "-obs_var TP06 -msg_typ
ADPSFC"
> > > > > > > options. If there we get some red dots on the output,
then
> > > > > > > we've got the correct message type. If not, you'll need
to
> > > > > > > figure out the message type used for
> > > > > > > TP06 obs and request that in the Point-Stat
configuration
> > > > > > > file
> > > > instead.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When you run Point-Stat be sure to continue using the "-
v 3"
> > > > > > > option to
> > > > > > dump
> > > > > > > out counts of reason codes for why observations were or
> > > > > > > were not used in the verification.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 1:51 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > > via RT < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > <URL:
> > > > > > > >
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > John, I was able to plot the data in plot_point_obs so
> > > > > > > > the data is
> > > > > > there.
> > > > > > > > Digging in to the NETCDF file which contains the data,
I
> > > > > > > > see there are three message types (ADPSFC,ADPUPR,
SFCSHP).
> > > > > > > > In my config file
> > > > > > > (attached)
> > > > > > > > I leave the message type field empty which I thought
> > > > > > > > means use them
> > > > > > all.
> > > > > > > > Using ncdump to peer into the file, I can see where
in
> > > > > > > > the variable
> > > > > > TP06
> > > > > > > > is in the file (variable number 14). I sent the
netcdf
> > > > > > > > file via
> > > > > > DODSAFE.
> > > > > > > > Any other things I should check?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 5:06 PM
> > > > > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729]
> > > > > > > > Use of
> > > > > > > > TP06
> > > > > > field
> > > > > > > > in Prepbufr data
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Bob,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nothing immediately jumps out at me as an obvious
problem.
> > > > > > > > There's
> > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > multiple steps occurring here:
> > > > > > > > (1) Configure/run pb2nc and retain TP06 observations.
> > > > > > > > (2) Configure/run point_stat to verify against those
> > > observations.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'd recommend making sure that (1) works as expected.
> > > > > > > > You could do so,
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > running plot_point_obs on the output from pb2nc. Use
the
> > > > > > > > "-obs_var
> > > > > > TP06"
> > > > > > > > command line option to only process observations of
that
> type.
> > > > > > > > If there are red dots in the output postscript image,
> > > > > > > > then you know you
> > > > > > > successfully
> > > > > > > > retained them. If not, then you need to work on the
> > > > > > > > PB2NC
> > > > > > configuration.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Once you know (1) is working, run (2). I don't know
what
> > > > > "message_type"
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > used for TP06 observations. So we'll need to figure
that
> > > > > > > > out and
> > > > > > request
> > > > > > > > that message type in the Point-Stat config file.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Please let me know how it goes.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > John
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 3:18 PM
robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > > > via RT < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Tue Sep 15 15:18:49 2020: Request 96729 was acted
upon.
> > > > > > > > > Transaction: Ticket created by
robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > > > > Queue: met_help
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > > > > > > Owner: Nobody
> > > > > > > > > Requestors: robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > > > > Status: new
> > > > > > > > > Ticket <URL:
> > > > > > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > John, I am exploring using the TP06 field in
Prepbufr
> > > > > > > > > data for
> > > > > 6hour
> > > > > > > > > precip. When I run point stat using TP06 for ob
name and
> A6
> > > for
> > > > > > > level,
> > > > > > > > > met rejects them for ob type. What do people
> > > > > > > > > typically use for
> > > > > TP06.
> > > > > > > > > I will send a prepbufr file to you tomorrow that I
am
> using.
> > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > > what might be wrong?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
From: robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
Time: Wed Sep 23 13:12:39 2020
GRIB1
0 2 131 57 "var0" "undefined" ""
1 2 131 57 "PRES" "Pressure" "Pa"
2 2 131 57 "PRMSL" "Pressure reduced to MSL" "Pa"
3 2 131 57 "PTEND" "Pressure tendency" "Pa/s"
4 2 131 57 "var4" "undefined" ""
5 2 131 57 "var5" "undefined" ""
6 2 131 57 "GP" "Geopotential" "m^2/s^2"
7 2 131 57 "HGT" "Geopotential height" "gpm"
8 2 131 57 "DIST" "Geometric height" "m"
9 2 131 57 "HSTDV" "Std dev of height" "m"
10 2 131 57 "HVAR" "Variance of height" "m^2"
11 2 131 57 "TMP" "Temp." "K"
12 2 131 57 "VTMP" "Virtual temp." "K"
13 2 131 57 "POT" "Potential temp." "K"
14 2 131 57 "EPOT" "Pseudo-adiabatic pot. temp." "K"
15 2 131 57 "TMAX" "Max. temp." "K"
16 2 131 57 "TMIN" "Min. temp." "K"
17 2 131 57 "DPT" "Dew point temp." "K"
18 2 131 57 "DEPR" "Dew point depression" "K"
19 2 131 57 "LAPR" "Lapse rate" "K/m"
20 2 131 57 "VISIB" "Visibility" "m"
21 2 131 57 "RDSP1" "Radar spectra (1)" "non-dim"
22 2 131 57 "RDSP2" "Radar spectra (2)" "non-dim"
23 2 131 57 "RDSP3" "Radar spectra (3)" "non-dim"
24 2 131 57 "var24" "undefined" ""
25 2 131 57 "TMPA" "Temp. anomaly" "K"
26 2 131 57 "PRESA" "Pressure anomaly" "Pa"
27 2 131 57 "GPA" "Geopotential height anomaly" "gpm"
28 2 131 57 "WVSP1" "Wave spectra (1)" "non-dim"
29 2 131 57 "WVSP2" "Wave spectra (2)" "non-dim"
30 2 131 57 "WVSP3" "Wave spectra (3)" "non-dim"
31 2 131 57 "WDIR" "Wind direction" "deg"
32 2 131 57 "WIND" "Wind speed" "m/s"
33 2 131 57 "UGRD" "u wind" "m/s"
34 2 131 57 "VGRD" "v wind" "m/s"
35 2 131 57 "STRM" "Stream function" "m^2/s"
36 2 131 57 "VPOT" "Velocity potential" "m^2/s"
37 2 131 57 "MNTSF" "Montgomery stream function" "m^2/s^2"
38 2 131 57 "SGCVV" "Sigma coord. vertical velocity" "/s"
39 2 131 57 "VVEL" "Pressure vertical velocity" "Pa/s"
40 2 131 57 "DZDT" "Geometric vertical velocity" "m/s"
41 2 131 57 "ABSV" "Absolute vorticity" "/s"
42 2 131 57 "ABSD" "Absolute divergence" "/s"
43 2 131 57 "RELV" "Relative vorticity" "/s"
44 2 131 57 "RELD" "Relative divergence" "/s"
45 2 131 57 "VUCSH" "Vertical u shear" "/s"
46 2 131 57 "VVCSH" "Vertical v shear" "/s"
47 2 131 57 "DIRC" "Direction of current" "deg"
48 2 131 57 "SPC" "Speed of current" "m/s"
49 2 131 57 "UOGRD" "u of current" "m/s"
50 2 131 57 "VOGRD" "v of current" "m/s"
51 2 131 57 "SPFH" "Specific humidity" "kg/kg"
52 2 131 57 "RH" "Relative humidity" "%"
53 2 131 57 "MIXR" "Humidity mixing ratio" "kg/kg"
54 2 131 57 "PWAT" "Precipitable water" "kg/m^2"
55 2 131 57 "VAPP" "Vapor pressure" "Pa"
56 2 131 57 "SATD" "Saturation deficit" "Pa"
57 2 131 57 "EVP" "Evaporation" "kg/m^2"
58 2 131 57 "CICE" "Cloud Ice" "kg/kg"
59 2 131 57 "PRATE" "Precipitation rate" "kg/m^2/s"
60 2 131 57 "TSTM" "Thunderstorm probability" "%"
61 1 131 57 "APCP" "Total precipitation" "kg/m^2"
62 2 131 57 "NCPCP" "Large scale precipitation" "kg/m^2"
63 2 131 57 "ACPCP" "Convective precipitation" "kg/m^2"
64 2 131 57 "SRWEQ" "Snowfall rate water equiv." "kg/m^2/s"
65 2 131 57 "WEASD" "Accum. snow" "kg/m^2"
66 2 131 57 "SNOD" "Snow depth" "m"
67 2 131 57 "MIXHT" "Mixed layer depth" "m"
68 2 131 57 "TTHDP" "Transient thermocline depth" "m"
69 2 131 57 "MTHD" "Main thermocline depth" "m"
70 2 131 57 "MTHA" "Main thermocline anomaly" "m"
71 2 131 57 "TCDC" "Total cloud cover" "%"
72 2 131 57 "CDCON" "Convective cloud cover" "%"
73 2 131 57 "LCDC" "Low level cloud cover" "%"
74 2 131 57 "MCDC" "Mid level cloud cover" "%"
75 2 131 57 "HCDC" "High level cloud cover" "%"
76 2 131 57 "CWAT" "Cloud water" "kg/m^2"
77 2 131 57 "var77" "undefined" ""
78 2 131 57 "SNOC" "Convective snow" "kg/m^2"
79 2 131 57 "SNOL" "Large scale snow" "kg/m^2"
80 2 131 57 "WTMP" "Water temp." "K"
81 2 131 57 "LAND" "Land-sea mask" "1=land; 0=sea"
82 2 131 57 "DSLM" "Deviation of sea level from mean" "m"
83 2 131 57 "SFCR" "Surface roughness" "m"
84 2 131 57 "ALBDO" "Albedo" "%"
85 2 131 57 "TSOIL" "Soil temp." "K"
86 2 131 57 "SOILM" "Soil moisture content" "kg/m^2"
87 2 131 57 "VEG" "Vegetation" "%"
88 2 131 57 "SALTY" "Salinity" "kg/kg"
89 2 131 57 "DEN" "Density" "kg/m^3"
90 2 131 57 "RUNOF" "Runoff" "kg/m^2"
91 2 131 57 "ICEC" "Ice concentration" "ice=1;no ice=0"
92 2 131 57 "ICETK" "Ice thickness" "m"
93 2 131 57 "DICED" "Direction of ice drift" "deg"
94 2 131 57 "SICED" "Speed of ice drift" "m/s"
95 2 131 57 "UICE" "u of ice drift" "m/s"
96 2 131 57 "VICE" "v of ice drift" "m/s"
97 2 131 57 "ICEG" "Ice growth rate" "m/s"
98 2 131 57 "ICED" "Ice divergence" "/s"
99 2 131 57 "SNOM" "Snow melt" "kg/m^2"
100 2 131 57 "HTSGW" "Sig height of wind waves and swell" "m"
101 2 131 57 "WVDIR" "Direction of wind waves" "deg"
102 2 131 57 "WVHGT" "Sig height of wind waves" "m"
103 2 131 57 "WVPER" "Mean period of wind waves" "s"
104 2 131 57 "SWDIR" "Direction of swell waves" "deg"
105 2 131 57 "SWELL" "Sig height of swell waves" "m"
106 2 131 57 "SWPER" "Mean period of swell waves" "s"
107 2 131 57 "DIRPW" "Primary wave direction" "deg"
108 2 131 57 "PERPW" "Primary wave mean period" "s"
109 2 131 57 "DIRSW" "Secondary wave direction" "deg"
110 2 131 57 "PERSW" "Secondary wave mean period" "s"
111 2 131 57 "NSWRS" "Net short wave (surface)" "W/m^2"
112 2 131 57 "NLWRS" "Net long wave (surface)" "W/m^2"
113 2 131 57 "NSWRT" "Net short wave (top)" "W/m^2"
114 2 131 57 "NLWRT" "Net long wave (top)" "W/m^2"
115 2 131 57 "LWAVR" "Long wave" "W/m^2"
116 2 131 57 "SWAVR" "Short wave" "W/m^2"
117 2 131 57 "GRAD" "Global radiation" "W/m^2"
118 2 131 57 "var118" "undefined" ""
119 2 131 57 "var119" "undefined" ""
120 2 131 57 "var120" "undefined" ""
121 2 131 57 "LHTFL" "Latent heat flux" "W/m^2"
122 2 131 57 "SHTFL" "Sensible heat flux" "W/m^2"
123 2 131 57 "var123" "Prob Wind Speed < 15kt" "%"
124 2 131 57 "UFLX" "Zonal momentum flux" "N/m^2"
125 2 131 57 "VFLX" "Meridional momentum flux" "N/m^2"
126 2 131 57 "WMIXE" "Wind mixing energy" "J"
127 2 131 57 "IMGD" "Image data" "integer"
128 2 131 57 "iceCoverage" "Ice Concentration" "%"
129 2 131 57 "iceAge" "Ice Age" "days"
130 2 131 57 "CIG3000" "Prob Ceiling < 3000" "%"
131 2 131 57 "CIG1000" "PRob Ceiling < 1000" "%"
132 2 131 57 "CIG500" "Prob Ceiling < 500" "%"
133 2 131 57 "PQP1" "Prob precip >.01" "%"
134 2 131 57 "var134" "undefined" ""
135 2 131 57 "dustVisibility" "Dust Visibility" "m"
136 2 131 57 "dustConcentration" "Dust Concentration" "?g m^-3"
137 2 131 57 "var137" "undefined" ""
138 2 131 57 "var138" "undefined" ""
139 2 131 57 "var139" "undefined" ""
140 2 131 57 "cloudHeightCeiling" "Ceiling" "m"
141 3 57 4 "PWS15" "Wind Speed > 15 kts" "%"
142 2 131 57 "var142" "undefined" ""
143 2 131 57 "var143" "undefined" ""
144 2 131 57 "fluxLongWaveRadiationDownward" "Downward longwave
radiation flux" "W m^2"
145 2 131 57 "fluxShortWaveRadiationDownward" "Downward shortwave
radiation flux " "W m^2"
146 2 131 57 "var146" "undefined" ""
147 2 131 57 "var147" "undefined" ""
148 2 131 57 "var148" "undefined" ""
149 2 131 57 "var149" "undefined" ""
150 2 131 57 "var150" "undefined" ""
151 2 131 57 "var151" "undefined" ""
152 2 131 57 "var152" "undefined" ""
153 2 131 57 "var153" "undefined" ""
154 2 131 57 "var154" "undefined" ""
155 2 131 57 "fluxHeatSurface" "Ground Heat Flux" "W m^2"
156 2 131 57 "var156" "undefined" ""
157 2 131 57 "var157 " "undefined" ""
158 3 57 4 "var158" "Wind Speed > 15 kts" "%"
159 3 57 4 "var159" "wind speed > 25 kts" "%"
160 3 57 4 "var160" "wind speed > 35 kts" "%"
161 3 57 4 "var161" "wind speed > 50 kts" "%"
162 3 57 4 "var162" "wind speed > 65 kts" "%"
163 2 131 57 "cloudAmountLayer" "Cloud Amount (layer)" "%"
164 2 131 57 "cloudTypeLayer" "Cloud Type (layer)" "code"
165 2 131 57 "cloudBrightnessInfrared" "Cloud Brightness IR" "non-dim"
166 2 131 57 "var166" "undefined" ""
167 2 131 57 "var167" "undefined" ""
168 2 131 57 "var168" "undefined" ""
169 2 131 57 "var169" "undefined" ""
170 2 131 57 "var170" "undefined" ""
171 2 131 57 "var171" "undefined" ""
172 2 131 57 "var172" "undefined" ""
173 2 131 57 "var173" "undefined" ""
174 2 131 57 "precipitationSnowDepthInches" "Snow Depth" "in"
175 2 131 57 "precipitationSnowAge" "Snow Age" "days"
176 2 131 57 "var176" "undefined" ""
177 2 131 57 "var177" "undefined" ""
178 2 131 57 "var178" "undefined" ""
179 2 131 57 "cloudAmountLayer" "Layer Cloud Amount" "%"
180 2 131 57 "cloudHeightBaseLayer" "Layer Cloud Base" "code"
181 2 131 57 "cloudHeightTopLayer" "Layer Cloud Top" "code"
182 2 131 57 "cloudTypeLayer" "Layer Cloud Type" "code"s
183 2 131 57 "timeLastUpdate" "Time of last update from base time"
"Minutes"
184 2 131 57 "var184" "undefined" ""
185 2 131 57 "cloudLayerOpticalDepth" "Layer Cloud Optical Depth"
"number"
186 2 131 57 "cloudLayerIcePercentage" "Layer Cloud Ice Percentage"
"%"
187 3 57 4 "CIG3000" "Prob Ceiling < 3000ft" "m"
188 3 57 4 "CIG1000" "Prob Ceiling < 1000ft" "%"
189 3 57 4 "CIG500" "Prob Ceiling < 500ft" "%"
190 2 131 57 "cloudLayerNumber" "Cloud Layer Number" "number"
191 2 131 57 "cloudAnalysisQualityIndex" "Cloud Analysis Quality
Index" "%"
192 2 131 57 "var192" "undefined" ""
193 2 131 57 "precipitationQuality" "Precipitation Quality Factor
(Goodness)" "non-dim"
194 2 131 57 "satelliteIdentifier" "Satellite Identifier" "code"
195 2 131 57 "satelliteMerged" "Satellite Merged - CDFS II" "code"
196 2 131 57 "var196" "undefined" ""
197 2 131 57 "var197" "undefined" ""
198 2 131 57 "precipitationDerivedGeostationarySatelliteBased"
"Estimated precipitation - geostationary satellite based" "mm"
199 2 131 57 "precipitationRankGeostationarySatellite" "Geostationary
Satellite precipitation rank" "category"
200 3 57 4 "PWS25" "Prob Wind Speed > 25kts" "%"
201 3 57 4 "PWS25" "Prob Wind Speed > 35kts" "%"
202 3 57 4 "PWS50" "Prob Wind Speed > 50kts" "%"
203 2 131 57 "precipitationAccumulatedMerged" "Precipitation - merged
analysis" "mm/24 hrs"
204 2 131 57 "evapotranspirationActual" "Evapotranspiration - actual"
"mm/24 hrs"
205 2 131 57 "soilType" "Soil Type" "code"
206 3 57 4 "PQP1" "Prob Precip > .01" "%"
207 2 131 57 "vegetationPlantCanopyMoistureContent" "Plant Canopy
moisture content" "mm"
208 2 131 57 "evapotranspirationPotential" "Evapotranspiration -
potential" "mm hr^-1"
209 2 131 57 "windRun" "Wind run" "km/24 hrs"
210 2 131 57 "humidityRelativeAtMinimumTemperature" "Relative Humidity
at minimum temperature" "%"
211 2 131 57 "soilMoistureVolumetricLiquid" "Volumetric Soil Moisture
(liquid only)" "volumetric; m^3 ^m-3"
212 2 131 57 "vegetationType" "Vegetation Type Category" "category"
213 2 131 57 "vegetationGreennessCoverage" "Vegetation Greenness" "%"
214 2 131 57 "var214" "undefined" ""
215 2 131 57 "var215" "undefined" ""
216 2 131 57 "var216" "undefined" ""
217 2 131 57 "var217" "undefined" ""
218 2 131 57 "var218" "undefined" ""
219 2 131 57 "var219" "undefined" ""
220 2 131 57 "var220" "undefined" ""
221 2 131 57 "var221" "undefined" ""
222 3 57 4 "QP010" "Prob Precip Accum >.10" "%"
223 3 57 4 "QP025" "Prob Precip Accum >.25" "%"
224 3 57 4 "QP050" "Prob Precip Accum >.50" "%"
225 2 131 57 "var225" "undefined" ""
226 3 57 4 "QP100" "Prob Precip Accum >1.00" "%"
227 2 131 57 "CDCB" "Cloud base" "m"
228 2 131 57 "cloudHeightTop" "Cloud top" "m"
229 2 131 57 "var229" "undefined" ""
230 2 131 57 "latitude" "Latitude" "deg"
231 2 131 57 "longitude" "Longitude" "deg"
232 2 131 57 "var232" "undefined" ""
233 2 131 57 "terrainSurfaceHeight" "Model terrain height" "m"
234 2 131 57 "runoffGroundwaterBaseflow" "Baseflow - groundwater
runoff" "mm"
235 2 131 57 "runoffStorm" "Storm surface runoff" "mm"
236 2 131 57 "var236" "undefined" ""
237 2 131 57 "var237" "undefined" ""
238 3 57 4 "PVIS3" "Prob Visibility < 3mi" "%"
239 3 57 4 "PVIS1" "Prob Visibility < 1mi" "%"
240 2 131 57 "COVTW" "TOT Precip" "KG/M2"
241 2 131 57 "landUseCategory" "Land-use" "category"
242 2 131 57 "var242" "undefined" ""
243 2 131 57 "var243" "undefined" ""
244 2 131 57 "var244" "undefined" ""
245 2 131 57 "var245" "undefined" ""
246 2 131 57 "var246" "undefined" ""
247 2 131 57 "var247" "undefined" ""
248 2 131 57 "var248" "undefined" ""
248 2 131 57 "var249" "undefined" ""
250 2 131 57 "N/A" "Quality Control Display " "code"
251 2 131 57 "var251" "undefined" ""
252 2 131 57 "var252" "undefined" ""
253 3 57 4 "PWS65" "Prob Wind Speed > 65kts" "%"
254 2 131 57 "var254" "undefined" ""
255 2 131 57 "var255" "undefined" ""
256 133 57 1 "CWGST" "Convective gust windspeed" "m s^-1"
257 133 57 1 "WBZHGT" "Wet Bulb Zero Height" "m"
258 133 57 1 "HAIL" "Hail size" "cm"
259 133 57 1 "CT1TOP" "Contrail Engine Type 1 Top" "m"
260 133 57 1 "CT1BASE" "Contrail Engine Type 1 Base" "m"
261 133 57 1 "CT2TOP" "Contrail Engine Type 2 Top" "m"
262 133 57 1 "CT2BASE" "Contrail Engine Type 2 Base" "m"
263 133 57 1 "CT3TOP" "Contrail Engine Type 3 Top" "m"
264 133 57 1 "CT3BASE" "Contrail Engine Type 3 Base" "m"
265 133 57 1 "PVORT" "Potential Vorticity" "km^2 kg s^-1"
266 133 57 1 "STTOP" "SLAT Turbulence Top" "NA"
267 133 57 1 "STBASE" "SLAT Turbulence Base" "NA"
268 133 57 1 "STI" "SLAT Turbulence Index" "NA"
269 133 57 1 "PANIND" "Panofsky Turbulence Index" "-200-500"
270 133 57 1 "ALSTG" "Altimeter setting " "in Hg"
271 133 57 1 "CAPE" "Convective Available Potential Energy" "J kg^-1"
272 133 57 1 "CIN" "Convective Inhibition" "J kg^-1"
273 133 57 1 "COND" "Condensate" "kg kg^-1"
274 133 57 1 "QCLOUD" "Cloud water Mixing Ratio" "kg kg^-1"
275 133 57 1 "QICE" "Ice Water Mixing Ratio" "kg kg^-1"
276 133 57 1 "QRAIN" "Rain Water Mixing Ratio" "kg kg^-1"
277 133 57 1 "MCONV" "Horizontal Moisture Convergence" "NA"
278 133 57 1 "TINT" "Turbulence Intensity" "NA"
279 133 57 1 "PCPTYPE" "Precipitation Type [0=none, 1=Rain, 2=TRW,
3=ZR, 4=mixed, 5=SN, 6=SVRTRW]" "NA"
280 133 57 1 "ICINT" "Icing Intensity" "NA"
------------------------------------------------
Subject: Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
From: John Halley Gotway
Time: Wed Sep 23 13:28:50 2020
Bob,
Yes, I agree, this is very odd. You most recently sent me a point
observation file named "2020091600.nc". When I run Point-Stat, it
processes
758386 observations but when you run it, it processes only 12687 of
them.
There is nothing in the Point-Stat configuration file that would cause
those counts to differ. Point-Stat is supposed to process ALL of the
input
point observations.
Please try running "ncdump -h 2020091600.nc". Here are the dimension I
see
from that:
> ncdump -h 2020091600.nc
netcdf \2020091600 {
dimensions:
mxstr = 16 ;
mxstr2 = 40 ;
mxstr3 = 80 ;
nobs = 758386 ;
nhdr = 79055 ;
npbhdr = 79055 ;
nhdr_typ = 3 ;
nhdr_sid = 12226 ;
nhdr_vld = 181 ;
nobs_qty = 7 ;
obs_var_num = 17 ;
Where "nobs = 758386".
Do you see something different from that exact same file?
John
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 1:12 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
>
> John,
>
> Okay I should have checked the domain - I thought it covered all of
> Africa. It is interesting that you show 758386 obs processed. I
get a
> much lower number from the same file. We must have some differences
in our
> config files (I attached ours). Since your map shows lots of TP06
obs over
> CONUS, I reran the verification for our CONUS domain and get the
same
> results - see below:
>
> Processing PQP1/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation type ADPSFC, over
> region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1), using 0 pairs.
> DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12687
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12687
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality marker = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad fcst value = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> DEBUG 2:
>
> I sent the CONUS version of the file to you. Attached is also our
grib 1
> file incase that helps. I also plotted the data and that is
attached.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 1:33 PM
> To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
<robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of
TP06
> field in Prepbufr data
>
> Bob,
>
> Great, thanks for sending the updated data. The GRIB table doesn't
work
> because you sent me the Air Force GRIB2 table but your data is
GRIB1. But
> again, that doesn't really matter.
>
> When I run Point-Stat version 8.1, I get 0 matched pairs with reason
codes
> listed like this:
>
> /Volumes/d1/projects/MET/MET_development/MET-
main_v8.1/met/bin/point_stat \
> grib.2020091500.0024 \
> 2020091600.nc \
> PointStatConfig_meps_tp_cont6_updated \
> -outdir out -v 3
> ...
> DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 758386
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 750084
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 8302
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality marker = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad fcst value = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> ...
>
> Looking from the bottom up, I see that we discarded 8302
observations that
> were "off the grid". So perhaps it's the case that just none of the
> observations fall inside your domain? Let's run plot_point_obs to
confirm.
>
> First, plot TP06 observations from this file globally:
> *plot_point_obs 2020091600.nc <http://2020091600.nc>
2020091600_global.ps
> <http://2020091600_global.ps> -obs_var TP06*
>
> Next, use the "-data_file" command line option to restrict to your
model
> domain:
>
> *plot_point_obs 2020091600.nc <http://2020091600.nc>
> 2020091600_model_domain.ps <http://2020091600_model_domain.ps>
-obs_var
> TP06 -data_file grib.2020091500.0024*
>
> PNG versions of the resulting images are attached. And that confirms
it.
> There just aren't any TP06 observations that fall within your domain
on
> the horn of Africa.
>
> John
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 11:47 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
> >
> > Okay, I got to files that should match sent via DOD safe.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 11:25 AM
> > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of
TP06
> > field in Prepbufr data
> >
> > Bob,
> >
> > I think we have a disconnect here.
> >
> > The point observation file you sent to me is named "2020080612.nc"
and
> > contains 783635 observations.
> >
> > ncdump -h 2020080612.nc | grep nobs
> > nobs = 783635 ;
> >
> > But clearly that's not the file you're using in your testing. If
it
> > were, we'd see a log message stating:
> > Observations processed = 783635
> >
> > So I don't think I'm testing the data you're actually using.
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 9:57 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
> > >
> > > John, I am not seeing a time stamp of 2020 in
grib.2020091500.0012 -
> > > I am seeing what you see. What I was saying is the MPR files
where
> > > I verify this model data against obs, the MPR valid time lines
have
> > > the correct dates in them (I attached one) - MET seemed to
handle
> > > the time
> > format of
> > > the model file okay. Below is the listing I get when running
point
> stat
> > > on this data. All obs are being rejected due to obs type.
> > >
> > > DEBUG 2:
> > >
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > > ----------
> > > DEBUG 2:
> > > DEBUG 2: Searching 12611 observations from 12611 messages.
> > > DEBUG 2:
> > > DEBUG 2:
> > >
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > > ----------
> > > DEBUG 2:
> > > DEBUG 2: Processing PQP1/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation type
> > > ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1),
using
> > > 0
> > pairs.
> > > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality
> > > marker = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad
fcst
> > > value = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > > DEBUG 2:
> > > DEBUG 2:
> > >
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > > ----------
> > > DEBUG 2:
> > > DEBUG 2: Processing QP010/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation
type
> > > ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1),
using
> > > 0
> > pairs.
> > > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality
> > > marker = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad
fcst
> > > value = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > > DEBUG 2:
> > > DEBUG 2:
> > >
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > > ----------
> > > DEBUG 2:
> > > DEBUG 2: Processing QP025/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation
type
> > > ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1),
using
> > > 0
> > pairs.
> > > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality
> > > marker = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad
fcst
> > > value = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > > DEBUG 2:
> > > DEBUG 2:
> > >
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > > ----------
> > > DEBUG 2:
> > > DEBUG 2: Processing QP050/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation
type
> > > ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1),
using
> > > 0
> > pairs.
> > > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality
> > > marker = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad
fcst
> > > value = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > > DEBUG 2:
> > > DEBUG 2:
> > >
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > > ----------
> > > DEBUG 2:
> > > DEBUG 2: Processing QP100/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation
type
> > > ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1),
using
> > > 0
> > pairs.
> > > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality
> > > marker = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad
fcst
> > > value = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > > DEBUG 2:
> > > DEBUG 2:
> > >
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > > ----------
> > > DEBUG 2:
> > > DEBUG 1: Output file:
> > >
/h/data/global/WXQC/data/met/ptstat/mdlob_pairs/meps/TP/point_stat_m
> > > ep s_cont6_060000L_20200915_060000V.stat
> > > DEBUG 1: Output file:
> > >
/h/data/global/WXQC/data/met/ptstat/mdlob_pairs/meps/TP/point_stat_m
> > > ep s_cont6_060000L_20200915_060000V_pct.txt
> > > DEBUG 1: Output file:
> > >
/h/data/global/WXQC/data/met/ptstat/mdlob_pairs/meps/TP/point_stat_m
> > > ep s_cont6_060000L_20200915_060000V_pstd.txt
> > > Processing 12hour
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 10:27 AM
> > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use
of
> > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > >
> > > Bob,
> > >
> > > OK, looking at the point observations in 2020080612.nc, I ran
the
> > > pntnc2ascii.R script to dump the obs to ascii to make them
easier to
> > > look
> > > at:
> > >
> > > Rscript share/met/Rscripts/pntnc2ascii.R 2020080612.nc >
> > > 2020080612.txt
> > >
> > > It contains 783635 point observations. And here's the list of
> > > variable names present in the 7-th column:
> > >
> > > > cat 2020080612.txt | awk '{print $7}' | sort -u | tr '\n' ', '
> > >
> > >
DPT,HGT,PRES,PRMSL,PRWE,RH,SPFH,TMP,TOCC,TP01,TP06,TP12,UGRD,VGRD,VI
> > > S,
> > > WDIR,WIND
> > >
> > > And I see that only 9483 are observations of TP06:
> > > > grep TP06 2020080612.txt | wc -l
> > > 9483
> > >
> > > So the behavior you describe is correct. Point-Stat should
reject
> > > the VAST majority of these point observations based on type.
Only
> > > 9483 out of 783635 (about 1%) are observations of TP06.
> > >
> > > I really don't know why you're seeing a timestamp of 2020 in
file
> > > you sent named "grib.2020091500.0012". I double-checked by
running
> > > wgrib on a different machine. Both instance of wgrib agree that
the
> > > timestamp of the data inside that file is 2009. See attached
wgrib
> > > output. But I'll leave it to you to make sense of that.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > John
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 9:13 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT
<
> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
>
> > > >
> > > > John, attached is our grib 2 file we are using. I should have
> > > > sent it earlier.
> > > >
> > > > Bob
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 9:37 AM
> > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use
of
> > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > >
> > > > Bob,
> > > >
> > > > When I run with the data you sent, I get these warnings:
> > > > WARNING: process_fcst_climo_files() -> no fields matching
> > > > QP100/A006 found in file: grib.2020091500.0012
> > > >
> > > > I assume you're using a custom GRIB table which defines those
> > > > variable
> > > > names: QP010, QP025, and so on
> > > >
> > > > Since I don't have that table and couldn't find one
referencing
> > > > those variable names being used by the other DTC Air Force
> > > > projects, I used wgrib to see the accumulation intervals and
range
> > > > of values and make an educated guess as to which records
> > > > correspond to these
> > variables.
> > > >
> > > > Since this is just for testing, it doesn't really matter, but
> > > > here's what I
> > > > guessed:
> > > > PQP1 = rec4 (name = UVI)
> > > > QP010 = rec6 (name = HPBL)
> > > > QP025 = rec7 (name = 5WAVH)
> > > > QP050 = rec8 (name = CNWAT)
> > > > QP100 = rec11 (name = BMIXL)
> > > >
> > > > So that's why you'll see these weird variable names in my
> > > > Point-Stat config file. At verbosity level 3, I see the
following
> reason counts:
> > > >
> > > > DEBUG 2: Processing BMIXL/A006 versus TP06/A6, for observation
> > > > type ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method
> > > > NEAREST(1), using
> > > > 0 matched pairs.
> > > > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 783635
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: station id = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 774152
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 9483
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected:
quality
> > > > marker = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad
fcst
> > > > value = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad climo mean = 0 DEBUG 3:
Rejected:
> > > > bad climo stdev = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > > >
> > > > The order listed in these log messages matches the order of
the
> > > > filtering logic applied. So we had 9483 obs discarded because
of
> > > > valid time. That means we're not getting matches because of an
> > > > offset
> > in time.
> > > >
> > > > Running wgrib with the "-verf" option, I see:
> > > >
> > > > wgrib -verf grib.2020091500.0012| head -1
> > > >
1:0:d=*20091512*:MSLSA:kpds5=128:kpds6=1:kpds7=0:TR=0:P1=12:P2=0:T
> > > > im
> > > > eU
> > > > =1:sfc:12hr
> > > > fcst:NAve=0
> > > >
> > > > While the timestamp listed in the filename is 2020, the
timestamp
> > > > listed in the data is 2009. And that's why we're not getting
matches.
> > > >
> > > > If this data really is from 2020 and you can modify the GRIB
file,
> > > > you should correct it to say 2020. If you can't modify the
GRIB
> > > > file, you could upgrade to met-9.1 and make use of the new
> > > > "set_attr" options to override the metadata of the file. If
you
> > > > look in the user's guide (
> > > > https://dtcenter.github.io/MET/Users_Guide/data_io.html), and
> > > > search
> > for "set_attr", you'll find the new config file options added in
met-9.1.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 2:50 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via
RT <
> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
> > > > >
> > > > > John,
> > > > >
> > > > > I tried your changes but I could not get it to work. I am
> > > > > sending you the probability file and the ob file. Our
> > > > > probability files differ from SREF so this should be a
closer
> > > > > comparison. I tried different combinations of things in the
met
> > > > > config file, even commenting out the climo stuff but still
no
> > > > > good. Up until now, we have been using our own version of
> > > > > netcdf precip file and that works. But our data has very
few
> > > > > precip obs over Africa so we need to switch to using the
> > > > Prepbufr data for precip.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > Bob
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 2:24 PM
> > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729]
Use
> > > > > of
> > > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob,
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, I was successful in getting matched pairs when comparing
> > > > > SREF probabilities to the point observations you sent to me.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's how I tested:
> > > > >
> > > > > - Pulled a sample SREF file from
> > > > >
> > > > >
https://nomads.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/data/nccf/com/sref/prod/sref.20
> > > > > 20
> > > > > 09
> > > > > 20
> > > > > /09/ensprod/sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2
> > > > >
> > > > > - Ran point_stat like this:
> > > > > /Volumes/d1/projects/MET/MET_development/MET-
main_v9.1/met/bin/p
> > > > > oi
> > > > > nt
> > > > > _s
> > > > > tat \
> > > > > sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2 2020080612.nc
> > > > > PointStatConfig_sref \ -outdir out -v 3
> > > > >
> > > > > Using the attached config file.
> > > > >
> > > > > And I see the following matching counts in the log messages:
> > > > >
> > > > > DEBUG 2: Processing PROB(APCP_06>6.350)/A06/PROB versus
TP06/L0,
> > > > > for observation type ADPSFC, over region FULL, for
interpolation
> > > > > method NEAREST(1), using 5630 matched pairs.
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 5630
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 783635
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: station id = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 774152
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 3853
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > My config file has several changes:
> > > > > - Different way of pulling forecast probabilities,
specifying
> "prob"
> > > > > as a dictionary instead of a boolean.
> > > > > - In the "obs" dictionary, I changed "level" from "A6" to
"L0".
> > > > > - In the "obs" dictionary, I changed the "cat_thresh" to be
> > > > > consistent with the forecast probabilities.
> > > > > - I disabled the "climo_mean" entry since I don't have your
data.
> > > > > - I added a few 0's to the "obs_window" setting since the
> > > > > forecast valid time doesn't match the time of the point
> observations.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anything in there that might help?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > John
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 10:00 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
via RT
> > > > > < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sounds good.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 10:57 AM
> > > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729]
Use
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bob,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry for the delay. Yes, I pulled the 2020080612.nc file.
I
> > > > > > do not have the file with your forecast probabilities.
> > > > > > So I just grabbed a sample Short-Range Ensemble Forecast
data
> > > > > > file from NOAA/EMC with which to test:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
https://nomads.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/data/nccf/com/sref/prod/sref.
> > > > > > 20
> > > > > > 20
> > > > > > 09
> > > > > > 20
> > > > > > /09/ensprod/sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have a couple of meetings this morning but will work on
> > > > > > setting up an example and get back to you later today.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > John
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 11:10 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
via
> > > > > > RT < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <URL:
> > > > > > > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, still rejecting on obs. Hopefully I can get you the
> > > > > > > netcdf ob file on Monday. I will also send the config
file
> > > > > > > I use for PB2NC to see if there are any setting in there
not
> > > > > > > quite
> > right.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > > Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 11:22 AM
> > > > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu
#96729]
> > > > > > > Use of
> > > > > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bob,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ah OK. I'm looking more closely at your Point-Stat
config file.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You'll probably need to change:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > FROM:
> > > > > > > obs = {
> > > > > > > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > > > > > > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> > > > > > > sid_exc = [];
> > > > > > > field = [
> > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh =>
.01;},
> > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh =>
.10;},
> > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh =>
.25;},
> > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh =>
.50;},
> > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh =>
1.0;}
> > > > > > > ];
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > TO:
> > > > > > > obs = {
> > > > > > > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > > > > > > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> > > > > > > sid_exc = [];
> > > > > > > field = [
> > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh =
>.01;},
> > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh =
>.10;},
> > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh =
>.25;},
> > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh =
>.50;},
> > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh =
>1.0;}
> > > > > > > ];
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are 2 small changes there. Replacing "A6" with
"L0"
> > > > > > > and getting rid of white-space between the ">" and the
> > > > > > > threshold
> > value.
> > > > > > > The point observations do not include a way of
indicating an
> > > > > > > "accumulation
> > > > > > interval".
> > > > > > > I suspect that's why it's embedded in the variable name,
> > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > TP06 means 6-hourly total precip.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please let me know if that produces better results.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > John
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 9:28 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
via
> > > > > > > RT < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > <URL:
> > > > > > > >
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > John, Both the ADPSFC and SFCSHP have TP06 obs. The
obs
> > > > > > > > are being rejected due to obs type not message type.
I
> > > > > > > > will see what happened to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > DODsafe file. Hopefully I will know more by Monday.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 5:26 PM
> > > > > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu
#96729]
> > > > > > > > Use of
> > > > > > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Bob,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I didn't see a DODSAFE message come through, and I'll
be
> > > > > > > > out of the
> > > > > > > office
> > > > > > > > tomorrow.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In your Point-Stat config file, I see that you're
> > > > > > > > verifying against observations of type "ADPSFC":
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > obs = {
> > > > > > > > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > > > > > > > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ]; ...
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So we just need to figure out if the PTYPE obs have
that
> > > > > > > > message
> > > > > type.
> > > > > > > > Run plot_point_obs using the "-obs_var TP06 -msg_typ
ADPSFC"
> > > > > > > > options. If there we get some red dots on the output,
then
> > > > > > > > we've got the correct message type. If not, you'll
need to
> > > > > > > > figure out the message type used for
> > > > > > > > TP06 obs and request that in the Point-Stat
configuration
> > > > > > > > file
> > > > > instead.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > When you run Point-Stat be sure to continue using the
"-v 3"
> > > > > > > > option to
> > > > > > > dump
> > > > > > > > out counts of reason codes for why observations were
or
> > > > > > > > were not used in the verification.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > John
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 1:51 PM
robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > > > via RT < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > <URL:
> > > > > > > > >
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > John, I was able to plot the data in plot_point_obs
so
> > > > > > > > > the data is
> > > > > > > there.
> > > > > > > > > Digging in to the NETCDF file which contains the
data, I
> > > > > > > > > see there are three message types (ADPSFC,ADPUPR,
SFCSHP).
> > > > > > > > > In my config file
> > > > > > > > (attached)
> > > > > > > > > I leave the message type field empty which I thought
> > > > > > > > > means use them
> > > > > > > all.
> > > > > > > > > Using ncdump to peer into the file, I can see where
in
> > > > > > > > > the variable
> > > > > > > TP06
> > > > > > > > > is in the file (variable number 14). I sent the
netcdf
> > > > > > > > > file via
> > > > > > > DODSAFE.
> > > > > > > > > Any other things I should check?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 5:06 PM
> > > > > > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu
#96729]
> > > > > > > > > Use of
> > > > > > > > > TP06
> > > > > > > field
> > > > > > > > > in Prepbufr data
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Bob,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Nothing immediately jumps out at me as an obvious
problem.
> > > > > > > > > There's
> > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > multiple steps occurring here:
> > > > > > > > > (1) Configure/run pb2nc and retain TP06
observations.
> > > > > > > > > (2) Configure/run point_stat to verify against those
> > > > observations.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'd recommend making sure that (1) works as
expected.
> > > > > > > > > You could do so,
> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > running plot_point_obs on the output from pb2nc. Use
the
> > > > > > > > > "-obs_var
> > > > > > > TP06"
> > > > > > > > > command line option to only process observations of
that
> > type.
> > > > > > > > > If there are red dots in the output postscript
image,
> > > > > > > > > then you know you
> > > > > > > > successfully
> > > > > > > > > retained them. If not, then you need to work on the
> > > > > > > > > PB2NC
> > > > > > > configuration.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Once you know (1) is working, run (2). I don't know
what
> > > > > > "message_type"
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > used for TP06 observations. So we'll need to figure
that
> > > > > > > > > out and
> > > > > > > request
> > > > > > > > > that message type in the Point-Stat config file.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Please let me know how it goes.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > John
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 3:18 PM
robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > > > > via RT < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Tue Sep 15 15:18:49 2020: Request 96729 was acted
upon.
> > > > > > > > > > Transaction: Ticket created by
robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > > > > > Queue: met_help
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > > > > > > > Owner: Nobody
> > > > > > > > > > Requestors: robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > > > > > Status: new
> > > > > > > > > > Ticket <URL:
> > > > > > > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > John, I am exploring using the TP06 field in
Prepbufr
> > > > > > > > > > data for
> > > > > > 6hour
> > > > > > > > > > precip. When I run point stat using TP06 for ob
name
> and
> > A6
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > level,
> > > > > > > > > > met rejects them for ob type. What do people
> > > > > > > > > > typically use for
> > > > > > TP06.
> > > > > > > > > > I will send a prepbufr file to you tomorrow that I
am
> > using.
> > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > > > what might be wrong?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
From: robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
Time: Wed Sep 23 13:57:34 2020
The difference in numbers really isn't there. The SID number is the
number of unique obs and that matches what I was getting. Sorry for
that confusion.
I found the discrepancy in why you are getting different results.
Even though I sent you the prepbufr file that contained TP06, my
verification runs were using our other home grown precip netcdf file.
So now when I run point stat using the correct file it gives me the
following:
DEBUG 1: User Config File:
/h/data/global/WXQC/data/met/config/met_config/PointStatConfig_meps_tp_conus_updated
ERROR :
ERROR : VarInfoGrib::add_grib_code() -> unrecognized GRIB1 field
abbreviation 'TP06' for table version 2
ERROR :
I guess this is progress. I added TP06 to the grib1 table in place of
APCP but still get the error. Did you have to add TP06 to your grib 1
tables our was it already there? If so, what was the grib code?
THanks
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 2:29 PM
To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
<robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of TP06
field in Prepbufr data
Bob,
Yes, I agree, this is very odd. You most recently sent me a point
observation file named "2020091600.nc". When I run Point-Stat, it
processes
758386 observations but when you run it, it processes only 12687 of
them.
There is nothing in the Point-Stat configuration file that would cause
those counts to differ. Point-Stat is supposed to process ALL of the
input point observations.
Please try running "ncdump -h 2020091600.nc". Here are the dimension I
see from that:
> ncdump -h 2020091600.nc
netcdf \2020091600 {
dimensions:
mxstr = 16 ;
mxstr2 = 40 ;
mxstr3 = 80 ;
nobs = 758386 ;
nhdr = 79055 ;
npbhdr = 79055 ;
nhdr_typ = 3 ;
nhdr_sid = 12226 ;
nhdr_vld = 181 ;
nobs_qty = 7 ;
obs_var_num = 17 ;
Where "nobs = 758386".
Do you see something different from that exact same file?
John
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 1:12 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
>
> John,
>
> Okay I should have checked the domain - I thought it covered all of
> Africa. It is interesting that you show 758386 obs processed. I
get
> a much lower number from the same file. We must have some
differences
> in our config files (I attached ours). Since your map shows lots of
> TP06 obs over CONUS, I reran the verification for our CONUS domain
> and get the same results - see below:
>
> Processing PQP1/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation type ADPSFC, over
> region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1), using 0 pairs.
> DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12687
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12687
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality marker = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad fcst value = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> DEBUG 2:
>
> I sent the CONUS version of the file to you. Attached is also our
> grib 1 file incase that helps. I also plotted the data and that is
attached.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 1:33 PM
> To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of
TP06
> field in Prepbufr data
>
> Bob,
>
> Great, thanks for sending the updated data. The GRIB table doesn't
> work because you sent me the Air Force GRIB2 table but your data is
> GRIB1. But again, that doesn't really matter.
>
> When I run Point-Stat version 8.1, I get 0 matched pairs with reason
> codes listed like this:
>
> /Volumes/d1/projects/MET/MET_development/MET-
main_v8.1/met/bin/point_s
> tat \
> grib.2020091500.0024 \
> 2020091600.nc \
> PointStatConfig_meps_tp_cont6_updated \ -outdir out -v 3 ...
> DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 758386
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 750084
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 8302
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality marker = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad fcst value = 0
> DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> ...
>
> Looking from the bottom up, I see that we discarded 8302
observations
> that were "off the grid". So perhaps it's the case that just none of
> the observations fall inside your domain? Let's run plot_point_obs
to confirm.
>
> First, plot TP06 observations from this file globally:
> *plot_point_obs 2020091600.nc <http://2020091600.nc>
> 2020091600_global.ps <http://2020091600_global.ps> -obs_var TP06*
>
> Next, use the "-data_file" command line option to restrict to your
> model
> domain:
>
> *plot_point_obs 2020091600.nc <http://2020091600.nc>
> 2020091600_model_domain.ps <http://2020091600_model_domain.ps>
> -obs_var
> TP06 -data_file grib.2020091500.0024*
>
> PNG versions of the resulting images are attached. And that confirms
it.
> There just aren't any TP06 observations that fall within your domain
> on the horn of Africa.
>
> John
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 11:47 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
> >
> > Okay, I got to files that should match sent via DOD safe.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 11:25 AM
> > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of
> > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> >
> > Bob,
> >
> > I think we have a disconnect here.
> >
> > The point observation file you sent to me is named "2020080612.nc"
> > and contains 783635 observations.
> >
> > ncdump -h 2020080612.nc | grep nobs
> > nobs = 783635 ;
> >
> > But clearly that's not the file you're using in your testing. If
it
> > were, we'd see a log message stating:
> > Observations processed = 783635
> >
> > So I don't think I'm testing the data you're actually using.
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 9:57 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
> > >
> > > John, I am not seeing a time stamp of 2020 in
grib.2020091500.0012
> > > - I am seeing what you see. What I was saying is the MPR files
> > > where I verify this model data against obs, the MPR valid time
> > > lines have the correct dates in them (I attached one) - MET
seemed
> > > to handle the time
> > format of
> > > the model file okay. Below is the listing I get when running
point
> stat
> > > on this data. All obs are being rejected due to obs type.
> > >
> > > DEBUG 2:
> > >
------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > > --
> > > ----------
> > > DEBUG 2:
> > > DEBUG 2: Searching 12611 observations from 12611 messages.
> > > DEBUG 2:
> > > DEBUG 2:
> > >
------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > > --
> > > ----------
> > > DEBUG 2:
> > > DEBUG 2: Processing PQP1/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation type
> > > ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1),
> > > using
> > > 0
> > pairs.
> > > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality
> > > marker = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad
fcst
> > > value = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > > DEBUG 2:
> > > DEBUG 2:
> > >
------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > > --
> > > ----------
> > > DEBUG 2:
> > > DEBUG 2: Processing QP010/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation
type
> > > ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1),
> > > using
> > > 0
> > pairs.
> > > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality
> > > marker = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad
fcst
> > > value = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > > DEBUG 2:
> > > DEBUG 2:
> > >
------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > > --
> > > ----------
> > > DEBUG 2:
> > > DEBUG 2: Processing QP025/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation
type
> > > ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1),
> > > using
> > > 0
> > pairs.
> > > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality
> > > marker = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad
fcst
> > > value = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > > DEBUG 2:
> > > DEBUG 2:
> > >
------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > > --
> > > ----------
> > > DEBUG 2:
> > > DEBUG 2: Processing QP050/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation
type
> > > ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1),
> > > using
> > > 0
> > pairs.
> > > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality
> > > marker = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad
fcst
> > > value = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > > DEBUG 2:
> > > DEBUG 2:
> > >
------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > > --
> > > ----------
> > > DEBUG 2:
> > > DEBUG 2: Processing QP100/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation
type
> > > ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1),
> > > using
> > > 0
> > pairs.
> > > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality
> > > marker = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad
fcst
> > > value = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > > DEBUG 2:
> > > DEBUG 2:
> > >
------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > > --
> > > ----------
> > > DEBUG 2:
> > > DEBUG 1: Output file:
> > >
/h/data/global/WXQC/data/met/ptstat/mdlob_pairs/meps/TP/point_stat
> > > _m ep s_cont6_060000L_20200915_060000V.stat
> > > DEBUG 1: Output file:
> > >
/h/data/global/WXQC/data/met/ptstat/mdlob_pairs/meps/TP/point_stat
> > > _m ep s_cont6_060000L_20200915_060000V_pct.txt
> > > DEBUG 1: Output file:
> > >
/h/data/global/WXQC/data/met/ptstat/mdlob_pairs/meps/TP/point_stat
> > > _m ep s_cont6_060000L_20200915_060000V_pstd.txt
> > > Processing 12hour
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 10:27 AM
> > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use
of
> > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > >
> > > Bob,
> > >
> > > OK, looking at the point observations in 2020080612.nc, I ran
the
> > > pntnc2ascii.R script to dump the obs to ascii to make them
easier
> > > to look
> > > at:
> > >
> > > Rscript share/met/Rscripts/pntnc2ascii.R 2020080612.nc >
> > > 2020080612.txt
> > >
> > > It contains 783635 point observations. And here's the list of
> > > variable names present in the 7-th column:
> > >
> > > > cat 2020080612.txt | awk '{print $7}' | sort -u | tr '\n' ', '
> > >
> > >
DPT,HGT,PRES,PRMSL,PRWE,RH,SPFH,TMP,TOCC,TP01,TP06,TP12,UGRD,VGRD,
> > > VI
> > > S,
> > > WDIR,WIND
> > >
> > > And I see that only 9483 are observations of TP06:
> > > > grep TP06 2020080612.txt | wc -l
> > > 9483
> > >
> > > So the behavior you describe is correct. Point-Stat should
reject
> > > the VAST majority of these point observations based on type.
Only
> > > 9483 out of 783635 (about 1%) are observations of TP06.
> > >
> > > I really don't know why you're seeing a timestamp of 2020 in
file
> > > you sent named "grib.2020091500.0012". I double-checked by
running
> > > wgrib on a different machine. Both instance of wgrib agree that
> > > the timestamp of the data inside that file is 2009. See attached
> > > wgrib output. But I'll leave it to you to make sense of that.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > John
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 9:13 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT
<
> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
>
> > > >
> > > > John, attached is our grib 2 file we are using. I should have
> > > > sent it earlier.
> > > >
> > > > Bob
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 9:37 AM
> > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use
> > > > of
> > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > >
> > > > Bob,
> > > >
> > > > When I run with the data you sent, I get these warnings:
> > > > WARNING: process_fcst_climo_files() -> no fields matching
> > > > QP100/A006 found in file: grib.2020091500.0012
> > > >
> > > > I assume you're using a custom GRIB table which defines those
> > > > variable
> > > > names: QP010, QP025, and so on
> > > >
> > > > Since I don't have that table and couldn't find one
referencing
> > > > those variable names being used by the other DTC Air Force
> > > > projects, I used wgrib to see the accumulation intervals and
> > > > range of values and make an educated guess as to which records
> > > > correspond to these
> > variables.
> > > >
> > > > Since this is just for testing, it doesn't really matter, but
> > > > here's what I
> > > > guessed:
> > > > PQP1 = rec4 (name = UVI)
> > > > QP010 = rec6 (name = HPBL)
> > > > QP025 = rec7 (name = 5WAVH)
> > > > QP050 = rec8 (name = CNWAT)
> > > > QP100 = rec11 (name = BMIXL)
> > > >
> > > > So that's why you'll see these weird variable names in my
> > > > Point-Stat config file. At verbosity level 3, I see the
> > > > following
> reason counts:
> > > >
> > > > DEBUG 2: Processing BMIXL/A006 versus TP06/A6, for observation
> > > > type ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method
> > > > NEAREST(1), using
> > > > 0 matched pairs.
> > > > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 783635
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: station id = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 774152
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 9483
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected:
> > > > quality marker = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad
> > > > fcst value = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad climo mean = 0 DEBUG
3: Rejected:
> > > > bad climo stdev = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > > >
> > > > The order listed in these log messages matches the order of
the
> > > > filtering logic applied. So we had 9483 obs discarded because
of
> > > > valid time. That means we're not getting matches because of an
> > > > offset
> > in time.
> > > >
> > > > Running wgrib with the "-verf" option, I see:
> > > >
> > > > wgrib -verf grib.2020091500.0012| head -1
> > > >
1:0:d=*20091512*:MSLSA:kpds5=128:kpds6=1:kpds7=0:TR=0:P1=12:P2=0
> > > > :T
> > > > im
> > > > eU
> > > > =1:sfc:12hr
> > > > fcst:NAve=0
> > > >
> > > > While the timestamp listed in the filename is 2020, the
> > > > timestamp listed in the data is 2009. And that's why we're not
getting matches.
> > > >
> > > > If this data really is from 2020 and you can modify the GRIB
> > > > file, you should correct it to say 2020. If you can't modify
the
> > > > GRIB file, you could upgrade to met-9.1 and make use of the
new
> > > > "set_attr" options to override the metadata of the file. If
you
> > > > look in the user's guide (
> > > > https://dtcenter.github.io/MET/Users_Guide/data_io.html), and
> > > > search
> > for "set_attr", you'll find the new config file options added in
met-9.1.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 2:50 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via
RT
> > > > < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > John,
> > > > >
> > > > > I tried your changes but I could not get it to work. I am
> > > > > sending you the probability file and the ob file. Our
> > > > > probability files differ from SREF so this should be a
closer
> > > > > comparison. I tried different combinations of things in the
> > > > > met config file, even commenting out the climo stuff but
still
> > > > > no good. Up until now, we have been using our own version
of
> > > > > netcdf precip file and that works. But our data has very
few
> > > > > precip obs over Africa so we need to switch to using the
> > > > Prepbufr data for precip.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > Bob
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 2:24 PM
> > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729]
Use
> > > > > of
> > > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob,
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, I was successful in getting matched pairs when comparing
> > > > > SREF probabilities to the point observations you sent to me.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's how I tested:
> > > > >
> > > > > - Pulled a sample SREF file from
> > > > >
> > > > >
https://nomads.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/data/nccf/com/sref/prod/sref.
> > > > > 20
> > > > > 20
> > > > > 09
> > > > > 20
> > > > > /09/ensprod/sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2
> > > > >
> > > > > - Ran point_stat like this:
> > > > > /Volumes/d1/projects/MET/MET_development/MET-
main_v9.1/met/bin
> > > > > /p
> > > > > oi
> > > > > nt
> > > > > _s
> > > > > tat \
> > > > > sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2 2020080612.nc
> > > > > PointStatConfig_sref \ -outdir out -v 3
> > > > >
> > > > > Using the attached config file.
> > > > >
> > > > > And I see the following matching counts in the log messages:
> > > > >
> > > > > DEBUG 2: Processing PROB(APCP_06>6.350)/A06/PROB versus
> > > > > TP06/L0, for observation type ADPSFC, over region FULL, for
> > > > > interpolation method NEAREST(1), using 5630 matched pairs.
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 5630
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 783635
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: station id = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 774152
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 3853
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > My config file has several changes:
> > > > > - Different way of pulling forecast probabilities,
specifying
> "prob"
> > > > > as a dictionary instead of a boolean.
> > > > > - In the "obs" dictionary, I changed "level" from "A6" to
"L0".
> > > > > - In the "obs" dictionary, I changed the "cat_thresh" to be
> > > > > consistent with the forecast probabilities.
> > > > > - I disabled the "climo_mean" entry since I don't have your
data.
> > > > > - I added a few 0's to the "obs_window" setting since the
> > > > > forecast valid time doesn't match the time of the point
> observations.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anything in there that might help?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > John
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 10:00 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
via
> > > > > RT < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <URL:
> > > > > > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sounds good.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 10:57 AM
> > > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729]
> > > > > > Use of
> > > > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bob,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry for the delay. Yes, I pulled the 2020080612.nc file.
I
> > > > > > do not have the file with your forecast probabilities.
> > > > > > So I just grabbed a sample Short-Range Ensemble Forecast
> > > > > > data file from NOAA/EMC with which to test:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
https://nomads.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/data/nccf/com/sref/prod/sref.
> > > > > > 20
> > > > > > 20
> > > > > > 09
> > > > > > 20
> > > > > > /09/ensprod/sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have a couple of meetings this morning but will work on
> > > > > > setting up an example and get back to you later today.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > John
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 11:10 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > via RT < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <URL:
> > > > > > > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, still rejecting on obs. Hopefully I can get you the
> > > > > > > netcdf ob file on Monday. I will also send the config
> > > > > > > file I use for PB2NC to see if there are any setting in
> > > > > > > there not quite
> > right.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > > Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 11:22 AM
> > > > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu
#96729]
> > > > > > > Use of
> > > > > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bob,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ah OK. I'm looking more closely at your Point-Stat
config file.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You'll probably need to change:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > FROM:
> > > > > > > obs = {
> > > > > > > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > > > > > > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> > > > > > > sid_exc = [];
> > > > > > > field = [
> > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh =>
.01;},
> > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh =>
.10;},
> > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh =>
.25;},
> > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh =>
.50;},
> > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh =>
1.0;}
> > > > > > > ];
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > TO:
> > > > > > > obs = {
> > > > > > > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > > > > > > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> > > > > > > sid_exc = [];
> > > > > > > field = [
> > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh =
>.01;},
> > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh =
>.10;},
> > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh =
>.25;},
> > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh =
>.50;},
> > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh =
>1.0;}
> > > > > > > ];
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are 2 small changes there. Replacing "A6" with
"L0"
> > > > > > > and getting rid of white-space between the ">" and the
> > > > > > > threshold
> > value.
> > > > > > > The point observations do not include a way of
indicating
> > > > > > > an "accumulation
> > > > > > interval".
> > > > > > > I suspect that's why it's embedded in the variable name,
> > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > TP06 means 6-hourly total precip.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please let me know if that produces better results.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > John
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 9:28 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > > via RT < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > <URL:
> > > > > > > >
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > John, Both the ADPSFC and SFCSHP have TP06 obs. The
obs
> > > > > > > > are being rejected due to obs type not message type.
I
> > > > > > > > will see what happened to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > DODsafe file. Hopefully I will know more by Monday.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 5:26 PM
> > > > > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu
> > > > > > > > #96729] Use of
> > > > > > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Bob,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I didn't see a DODSAFE message come through, and I'll
be
> > > > > > > > out of the
> > > > > > > office
> > > > > > > > tomorrow.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In your Point-Stat config file, I see that you're
> > > > > > > > verifying against observations of type "ADPSFC":
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > obs = {
> > > > > > > > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > > > > > > > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ]; ...
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So we just need to figure out if the PTYPE obs have
that
> > > > > > > > message
> > > > > type.
> > > > > > > > Run plot_point_obs using the "-obs_var TP06 -msg_typ
ADPSFC"
> > > > > > > > options. If there we get some red dots on the output,
> > > > > > > > then we've got the correct message type. If not,
you'll
> > > > > > > > need to figure out the message type used for
> > > > > > > > TP06 obs and request that in the Point-Stat
> > > > > > > > configuration file
> > > > > instead.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > When you run Point-Stat be sure to continue using the
"-v 3"
> > > > > > > > option to
> > > > > > > dump
> > > > > > > > out counts of reason codes for why observations were
or
> > > > > > > > were not used in the verification.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > John
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 1:51 PM
robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > > > via RT < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > <URL:
> > > > > > > > >
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=9672
> > > > > > > > > 9
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > John, I was able to plot the data in plot_point_obs
so
> > > > > > > > > the data is
> > > > > > > there.
> > > > > > > > > Digging in to the NETCDF file which contains the
data,
> > > > > > > > > I see there are three message types (ADPSFC,ADPUPR,
SFCSHP).
> > > > > > > > > In my config file
> > > > > > > > (attached)
> > > > > > > > > I leave the message type field empty which I thought
> > > > > > > > > means use them
> > > > > > > all.
> > > > > > > > > Using ncdump to peer into the file, I can see where
> > > > > > > > > in the variable
> > > > > > > TP06
> > > > > > > > > is in the file (variable number 14). I sent the
> > > > > > > > > netcdf file via
> > > > > > > DODSAFE.
> > > > > > > > > Any other things I should check?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 5:06 PM
> > > > > > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu
#96729]
> > > > > > > > > Use of
> > > > > > > > > TP06
> > > > > > > field
> > > > > > > > > in Prepbufr data
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Bob,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Nothing immediately jumps out at me as an obvious
problem.
> > > > > > > > > There's
> > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > multiple steps occurring here:
> > > > > > > > > (1) Configure/run pb2nc and retain TP06
observations.
> > > > > > > > > (2) Configure/run point_stat to verify against those
> > > > observations.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'd recommend making sure that (1) works as
expected.
> > > > > > > > > You could do so,
> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > running plot_point_obs on the output from pb2nc. Use
> > > > > > > > > the "-obs_var
> > > > > > > TP06"
> > > > > > > > > command line option to only process observations of
> > > > > > > > > that
> > type.
> > > > > > > > > If there are red dots in the output postscript
image,
> > > > > > > > > then you know you
> > > > > > > > successfully
> > > > > > > > > retained them. If not, then you need to work on the
> > > > > > > > > PB2NC
> > > > > > > configuration.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Once you know (1) is working, run (2). I don't know
> > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > "message_type"
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > used for TP06 observations. So we'll need to figure
> > > > > > > > > that out and
> > > > > > > request
> > > > > > > > > that message type in the Point-Stat config file.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Please let me know how it goes.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > John
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 3:18 PM
> > > > > > > > > robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT < met_help at ucar.edu>
wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Tue Sep 15 15:18:49 2020: Request 96729 was acted
upon.
> > > > > > > > > > Transaction: Ticket created by
robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > > > > > Queue: met_help
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > > > > > > > Owner: Nobody
> > > > > > > > > > Requestors: robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > > > > > Status: new
> > > > > > > > > > Ticket <URL:
> > > > > > > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > John, I am exploring using the TP06 field in
> > > > > > > > > > Prepbufr data for
> > > > > > 6hour
> > > > > > > > > > precip. When I run point stat using TP06 for ob
name
> and
> > A6
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > level,
> > > > > > > > > > met rejects them for ob type. What do people
> > > > > > > > > > typically use for
> > > > > > TP06.
> > > > > > > > > > I will send a prepbufr file to you tomorrow that I
> > > > > > > > > > am
> > using.
> > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > > > what might be wrong?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
From: John Halley Gotway
Time: Wed Sep 23 15:58:37 2020
Bob,
I hadn't actually run Point-Stat on the latest files. I just ran
plot_point_obs to figure out why you got 0 matched pairs.
When I tried running Point-Stat, I did NOT get that error message. I
realize though that I'm running met-8.1 + all known bugfixes. That's
the
tip of the GitHub branch named "main_v8.1
<https://github.com/dtcenter/MET/tree/main_v8.1>". I wasn't able to
compile
met-8.1, as released, because of problems with GNU compiler versions >
6.3.0. But was able to compile the first bugfix release, met-8.1.1.
But met-8.1.1 didn't issue that error message either.
I suspect any GRIB1 entry for TP06 in your custom GRIB1 table file
would
work.
Sorry I can't be of more help.
John
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 1:58 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
>
> The difference in numbers really isn't there. The SID number is the
> number of unique obs and that matches what I was getting. Sorry for
that
> confusion.
>
> I found the discrepancy in why you are getting different results.
Even
> though I sent you the prepbufr file that contained TP06, my
verification
> runs were using our other home grown precip netcdf file. So now
when I run
> point stat using the correct file it gives me the following:
> DEBUG 1: User Config File:
>
/h/data/global/WXQC/data/met/config/met_config/PointStatConfig_meps_tp_conus_updated
> ERROR :
> ERROR : VarInfoGrib::add_grib_code() -> unrecognized GRIB1 field
> abbreviation 'TP06' for table version 2
> ERROR :
>
> I guess this is progress. I added TP06 to the grib1 table in place
of
> APCP but still get the error. Did you have to add TP06 to your grib
1
> tables our was it already there? If so, what was the grib code?
>
> THanks
> Bob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 2:29 PM
> To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
<robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of
TP06
> field in Prepbufr data
>
> Bob,
>
> Yes, I agree, this is very odd. You most recently sent me a point
> observation file named "2020091600.nc". When I run Point-Stat, it
> processes
> 758386 observations but when you run it, it processes only 12687 of
them.
> There is nothing in the Point-Stat configuration file that would
cause
> those counts to differ. Point-Stat is supposed to process ALL of the
input
> point observations.
>
> Please try running "ncdump -h 2020091600.nc". Here are the dimension
I
> see from that:
>
> > ncdump -h 2020091600.nc
> netcdf \2020091600 {
> dimensions:
> mxstr = 16 ;
> mxstr2 = 40 ;
> mxstr3 = 80 ;
> nobs = 758386 ;
> nhdr = 79055 ;
> npbhdr = 79055 ;
> nhdr_typ = 3 ;
> nhdr_sid = 12226 ;
> nhdr_vld = 181 ;
> nobs_qty = 7 ;
> obs_var_num = 17 ;
>
> Where "nobs = 758386".
>
> Do you see something different from that exact same file?
>
> John
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 1:12 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
> >
> > John,
> >
> > Okay I should have checked the domain - I thought it covered all
of
> > Africa. It is interesting that you show 758386 obs processed. I
get
> > a much lower number from the same file. We must have some
differences
> > in our config files (I attached ours). Since your map shows lots
of
> > TP06 obs over CONUS, I reran the verification for our CONUS
domain
> > and get the same results - see below:
> >
> > Processing PQP1/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation type ADPSFC,
over
> > region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1), using 0 pairs.
> > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12687
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12687
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality marker = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad fcst value = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > DEBUG 2:
> >
> > I sent the CONUS version of the file to you. Attached is also our
> > grib 1 file incase that helps. I also plotted the data and that
is
> attached.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 1:33 PM
> > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of
TP06
> > field in Prepbufr data
> >
> > Bob,
> >
> > Great, thanks for sending the updated data. The GRIB table doesn't
> > work because you sent me the Air Force GRIB2 table but your data
is
> > GRIB1. But again, that doesn't really matter.
> >
> > When I run Point-Stat version 8.1, I get 0 matched pairs with
reason
> > codes listed like this:
> >
> > /Volumes/d1/projects/MET/MET_development/MET-
main_v8.1/met/bin/point_s
> > tat \
> > grib.2020091500.0024 \
> > 2020091600.nc \
> > PointStatConfig_meps_tp_cont6_updated \ -outdir out -v 3 ...
> > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 758386
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 750084
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 8302
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality marker = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad fcst value = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > ...
> >
> > Looking from the bottom up, I see that we discarded 8302
observations
> > that were "off the grid". So perhaps it's the case that just none
of
> > the observations fall inside your domain? Let's run plot_point_obs
to
> confirm.
> >
> > First, plot TP06 observations from this file globally:
> > *plot_point_obs 2020091600.nc <http://2020091600.nc>
> > 2020091600_global.ps <http://2020091600_global.ps> -obs_var TP06*
> >
> > Next, use the "-data_file" command line option to restrict to your
> > model
> > domain:
> >
> > *plot_point_obs 2020091600.nc <http://2020091600.nc>
> > 2020091600_model_domain.ps <http://2020091600_model_domain.ps>
> > -obs_var
> > TP06 -data_file grib.2020091500.0024*
> >
> > PNG versions of the resulting images are attached. And that
confirms it.
> > There just aren't any TP06 observations that fall within your
domain
> > on the horn of Africa.
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 11:47 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
> > >
> > > Okay, I got to files that should match sent via DOD safe.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 11:25 AM
> > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use
of
> > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > >
> > > Bob,
> > >
> > > I think we have a disconnect here.
> > >
> > > The point observation file you sent to me is named
"2020080612.nc"
> > > and contains 783635 observations.
> > >
> > > ncdump -h 2020080612.nc | grep nobs
> > > nobs = 783635 ;
> > >
> > > But clearly that's not the file you're using in your testing. If
it
> > > were, we'd see a log message stating:
> > > Observations processed = 783635
> > >
> > > So I don't think I'm testing the data you're actually using.
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 9:57 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT
<
> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
>
> > > >
> > > > John, I am not seeing a time stamp of 2020 in
grib.2020091500.0012
> > > > - I am seeing what you see. What I was saying is the MPR
files
> > > > where I verify this model data against obs, the MPR valid time
> > > > lines have the correct dates in them (I attached one) - MET
seemed
> > > > to handle the time
> > > format of
> > > > the model file okay. Below is the listing I get when running
point
> > stat
> > > > on this data. All obs are being rejected due to obs type.
> > > >
> > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > >
------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > --
> > > > --
> > > > ----------
> > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > DEBUG 2: Searching 12611 observations from 12611 messages.
> > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > >
------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > --
> > > > --
> > > > ----------
> > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > DEBUG 2: Processing PQP1/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation
type
> > > > ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1),
> > > > using
> > > > 0
> > > pairs.
> > > > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected:
quality
> > > > marker = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad
fcst
> > > > value = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > >
------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > --
> > > > --
> > > > ----------
> > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > DEBUG 2: Processing QP010/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation
type
> > > > ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1),
> > > > using
> > > > 0
> > > pairs.
> > > > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected:
quality
> > > > marker = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad
fcst
> > > > value = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > >
------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > --
> > > > --
> > > > ----------
> > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > DEBUG 2: Processing QP025/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation
type
> > > > ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1),
> > > > using
> > > > 0
> > > pairs.
> > > > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected:
quality
> > > > marker = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad
fcst
> > > > value = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > >
------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > --
> > > > --
> > > > ----------
> > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > DEBUG 2: Processing QP050/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation
type
> > > > ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1),
> > > > using
> > > > 0
> > > pairs.
> > > > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected:
quality
> > > > marker = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad
fcst
> > > > value = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > >
------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > --
> > > > --
> > > > ----------
> > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > DEBUG 2: Processing QP100/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation
type
> > > > ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1),
> > > > using
> > > > 0
> > > pairs.
> > > > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected:
quality
> > > > marker = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad
fcst
> > > > value = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > >
------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > --
> > > > --
> > > > ----------
> > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > DEBUG 1: Output file:
> > > >
/h/data/global/WXQC/data/met/ptstat/mdlob_pairs/meps/TP/point_stat
> > > > _m ep s_cont6_060000L_20200915_060000V.stat
> > > > DEBUG 1: Output file:
> > > >
/h/data/global/WXQC/data/met/ptstat/mdlob_pairs/meps/TP/point_stat
> > > > _m ep s_cont6_060000L_20200915_060000V_pct.txt
> > > > DEBUG 1: Output file:
> > > >
/h/data/global/WXQC/data/met/ptstat/mdlob_pairs/meps/TP/point_stat
> > > > _m ep s_cont6_060000L_20200915_060000V_pstd.txt
> > > > Processing 12hour
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 10:27 AM
> > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use
of
> > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > >
> > > > Bob,
> > > >
> > > > OK, looking at the point observations in 2020080612.nc, I ran
the
> > > > pntnc2ascii.R script to dump the obs to ascii to make them
easier
> > > > to look
> > > > at:
> > > >
> > > > Rscript share/met/Rscripts/pntnc2ascii.R 2020080612.nc >
> > > > 2020080612.txt
> > > >
> > > > It contains 783635 point observations. And here's the list of
> > > > variable names present in the 7-th column:
> > > >
> > > > > cat 2020080612.txt | awk '{print $7}' | sort -u | tr '\n' ',
'
> > > >
> > > >
DPT,HGT,PRES,PRMSL,PRWE,RH,SPFH,TMP,TOCC,TP01,TP06,TP12,UGRD,VGRD,
> > > > VI
> > > > S,
> > > > WDIR,WIND
> > > >
> > > > And I see that only 9483 are observations of TP06:
> > > > > grep TP06 2020080612.txt | wc -l
> > > > 9483
> > > >
> > > > So the behavior you describe is correct. Point-Stat should
reject
> > > > the VAST majority of these point observations based on type.
Only
> > > > 9483 out of 783635 (about 1%) are observations of TP06.
> > > >
> > > > I really don't know why you're seeing a timestamp of 2020 in
file
> > > > you sent named "grib.2020091500.0012". I double-checked by
running
> > > > wgrib on a different machine. Both instance of wgrib agree
that
> > > > the timestamp of the data inside that file is 2009. See
attached
> > > > wgrib output. But I'll leave it to you to make sense of that.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 9:13 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via
RT <
> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
> > > > >
> > > > > John, attached is our grib 2 file we are using. I should
have
> > > > > sent it earlier.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 9:37 AM
> > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729]
Use
> > > > > of
> > > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob,
> > > > >
> > > > > When I run with the data you sent, I get these warnings:
> > > > > WARNING: process_fcst_climo_files() -> no fields matching
> > > > > QP100/A006 found in file: grib.2020091500.0012
> > > > >
> > > > > I assume you're using a custom GRIB table which defines
those
> > > > > variable
> > > > > names: QP010, QP025, and so on
> > > > >
> > > > > Since I don't have that table and couldn't find one
referencing
> > > > > those variable names being used by the other DTC Air Force
> > > > > projects, I used wgrib to see the accumulation intervals and
> > > > > range of values and make an educated guess as to which
records
> > > > > correspond to these
> > > variables.
> > > > >
> > > > > Since this is just for testing, it doesn't really matter,
but
> > > > > here's what I
> > > > > guessed:
> > > > > PQP1 = rec4 (name = UVI)
> > > > > QP010 = rec6 (name = HPBL)
> > > > > QP025 = rec7 (name = 5WAVH)
> > > > > QP050 = rec8 (name = CNWAT)
> > > > > QP100 = rec11 (name = BMIXL)
> > > > >
> > > > > So that's why you'll see these weird variable names in my
> > > > > Point-Stat config file. At verbosity level 3, I see the
> > > > > following
> > reason counts:
> > > > >
> > > > > DEBUG 2: Processing BMIXL/A006 versus TP06/A6, for
observation
> > > > > type ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method
> > > > > NEAREST(1), using
> > > > > 0 matched pairs.
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 783635
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: station id = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 774152
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 9483
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected:
> > > > > quality marker = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected:
bad
> > > > > fcst value = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad climo mean = 0 DEBUG
3:
> Rejected:
> > > > > bad climo stdev = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > > > >
> > > > > The order listed in these log messages matches the order of
the
> > > > > filtering logic applied. So we had 9483 obs discarded
because of
> > > > > valid time. That means we're not getting matches because of
an
> > > > > offset
> > > in time.
> > > > >
> > > > > Running wgrib with the "-verf" option, I see:
> > > > >
> > > > > wgrib -verf grib.2020091500.0012| head -1
> > > > >
1:0:d=*20091512*:MSLSA:kpds5=128:kpds6=1:kpds7=0:TR=0:P1=12:P2=0
> > > > > :T
> > > > > im
> > > > > eU
> > > > > =1:sfc:12hr
> > > > > fcst:NAve=0
> > > > >
> > > > > While the timestamp listed in the filename is 2020, the
> > > > > timestamp listed in the data is 2009. And that's why we're
not
> getting matches.
> > > > >
> > > > > If this data really is from 2020 and you can modify the GRIB
> > > > > file, you should correct it to say 2020. If you can't modify
the
> > > > > GRIB file, you could upgrade to met-9.1 and make use of the
new
> > > > > "set_attr" options to override the metadata of the file. If
you
> > > > > look in the user's guide (
> > > > > https://dtcenter.github.io/MET/Users_Guide/data_io.html),
and
> > > > > search
> > > for "set_attr", you'll find the new config file options added in
> met-9.1.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > John
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 2:50 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via
RT
> > > > > < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I tried your changes but I could not get it to work. I am
> > > > > > sending you the probability file and the ob file. Our
> > > > > > probability files differ from SREF so this should be a
closer
> > > > > > comparison. I tried different combinations of things in
the
> > > > > > met config file, even commenting out the climo stuff but
still
> > > > > > no good. Up until now, we have been using our own version
of
> > > > > > netcdf precip file and that works. But our data has very
few
> > > > > > precip obs over Africa so we need to switch to using the
> > > > > Prepbufr data for precip.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > Bob
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 2:24 PM
> > > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729]
Use
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bob,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OK, I was successful in getting matched pairs when
comparing
> > > > > > SREF probabilities to the point observations you sent to
me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here's how I tested:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Pulled a sample SREF file from
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
https://nomads.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/data/nccf/com/sref/prod/sref.
> > > > > > 20
> > > > > > 20
> > > > > > 09
> > > > > > 20
> > > > > > /09/ensprod/sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Ran point_stat like this:
> > > > > > /Volumes/d1/projects/MET/MET_development/MET-
main_v9.1/met/bin
> > > > > > /p
> > > > > > oi
> > > > > > nt
> > > > > > _s
> > > > > > tat \
> > > > > > sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2 2020080612.nc
> > > > > > PointStatConfig_sref \ -outdir out -v 3
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Using the attached config file.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And I see the following matching counts in the log
messages:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > DEBUG 2: Processing PROB(APCP_06>6.350)/A06/PROB versus
> > > > > > TP06/L0, for observation type ADPSFC, over region FULL,
for
> > > > > > interpolation method NEAREST(1), using 5630 matched pairs.
> > > > > > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 5630
> > > > > > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 783635
> > > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: station id = 0
> > > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 774152
> > > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 3853
> > > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My config file has several changes:
> > > > > > - Different way of pulling forecast probabilities,
specifying
> > "prob"
> > > > > > as a dictionary instead of a boolean.
> > > > > > - In the "obs" dictionary, I changed "level" from "A6" to
"L0".
> > > > > > - In the "obs" dictionary, I changed the "cat_thresh" to
be
> > > > > > consistent with the forecast probabilities.
> > > > > > - I disabled the "climo_mean" entry since I don't have
your data.
> > > > > > - I added a few 0's to the "obs_window" setting since the
> > > > > > forecast valid time doesn't match the time of the point
> > observations.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anything in there that might help?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > John
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 10:00 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
via
> > > > > > RT < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <URL:
> > > > > > > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sounds good.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 10:57 AM
> > > > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu
#96729]
> > > > > > > Use of
> > > > > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bob,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry for the delay. Yes, I pulled the 2020080612.nc
file. I
> > > > > > > do not have the file with your forecast probabilities.
> > > > > > > So I just grabbed a sample Short-Range Ensemble Forecast
> > > > > > > data file from NOAA/EMC with which to test:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
https://nomads.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/data/nccf/com/sref/prod/sref.
> > > > > > > 20
> > > > > > > 20
> > > > > > > 09
> > > > > > > 20
> > > > > > > /09/ensprod/sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have a couple of meetings this morning but will work
on
> > > > > > > setting up an example and get back to you later today.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > John
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 11:10 AM
robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > > via RT < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > <URL:
> > > > > > > >
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No, still rejecting on obs. Hopefully I can get you
the
> > > > > > > > netcdf ob file on Monday. I will also send the config
> > > > > > > > file I use for PB2NC to see if there are any setting
in
> > > > > > > > there not quite
> > > right.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 11:22 AM
> > > > > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu
#96729]
> > > > > > > > Use of
> > > > > > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Bob,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ah OK. I'm looking more closely at your Point-Stat
config
> file.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You'll probably need to change:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > FROM:
> > > > > > > > obs = {
> > > > > > > > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > > > > > > > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> > > > > > > > sid_exc = [];
> > > > > > > > field = [
> > > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh
=>
> .01;},
> > > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh
=>
> .10;},
> > > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh
=>
> .25;},
> > > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh
=>
> .50;},
> > > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh
=>
> 1.0;}
> > > > > > > > ];
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > TO:
> > > > > > > > obs = {
> > > > > > > > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > > > > > > > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> > > > > > > > sid_exc = [];
> > > > > > > > field = [
> > > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh
=
> >.01;},
> > > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh
=
> >.10;},
> > > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh
=
> >.25;},
> > > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh
=
> >.50;},
> > > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh
=
> >1.0;}
> > > > > > > > ];
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There are 2 small changes there. Replacing "A6" with
"L0"
> > > > > > > > and getting rid of white-space between the ">" and the
> > > > > > > > threshold
> > > value.
> > > > > > > > The point observations do not include a way of
indicating
> > > > > > > > an "accumulation
> > > > > > > interval".
> > > > > > > > I suspect that's why it's embedded in the variable
name,
> > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > TP06 means 6-hourly total precip.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Please let me know if that produces better results.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > John
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 9:28 AM
robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > > > via RT < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > <URL:
> > > > > > > > >
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > John, Both the ADPSFC and SFCSHP have TP06 obs. The
obs
> > > > > > > > > are being rejected due to obs type not message type.
I
> > > > > > > > > will see what happened to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > DODsafe file. Hopefully I will know more by Monday.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 5:26 PM
> > > > > > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu
> > > > > > > > > #96729] Use of
> > > > > > > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Bob,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I didn't see a DODSAFE message come through, and
I'll be
> > > > > > > > > out of the
> > > > > > > > office
> > > > > > > > > tomorrow.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In your Point-Stat config file, I see that you're
> > > > > > > > > verifying against observations of type "ADPSFC":
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > obs = {
> > > > > > > > > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > > > > > > > > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ]; ...
> > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So we just need to figure out if the PTYPE obs have
that
> > > > > > > > > message
> > > > > > type.
> > > > > > > > > Run plot_point_obs using the "-obs_var TP06 -msg_typ
> ADPSFC"
> > > > > > > > > options. If there we get some red dots on the
output,
> > > > > > > > > then we've got the correct message type. If not,
you'll
> > > > > > > > > need to figure out the message type used for
> > > > > > > > > TP06 obs and request that in the Point-Stat
> > > > > > > > > configuration file
> > > > > > instead.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > When you run Point-Stat be sure to continue using
the "-v
> 3"
> > > > > > > > > option to
> > > > > > > > dump
> > > > > > > > > out counts of reason codes for why observations were
or
> > > > > > > > > were not used in the verification.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > John
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 1:51 PM
robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > > > > via RT < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > <URL:
> > > > > > > > > >
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=9672
> > > > > > > > > > 9
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > John, I was able to plot the data in
plot_point_obs so
> > > > > > > > > > the data is
> > > > > > > > there.
> > > > > > > > > > Digging in to the NETCDF file which contains the
data,
> > > > > > > > > > I see there are three message types
(ADPSFC,ADPUPR,
> SFCSHP).
> > > > > > > > > > In my config file
> > > > > > > > > (attached)
> > > > > > > > > > I leave the message type field empty which I
thought
> > > > > > > > > > means use them
> > > > > > > > all.
> > > > > > > > > > Using ncdump to peer into the file, I can see
where
> > > > > > > > > > in the variable
> > > > > > > > TP06
> > > > > > > > > > is in the file (variable number 14). I sent the
> > > > > > > > > > netcdf file via
> > > > > > > > DODSAFE.
> > > > > > > > > > Any other things I should check?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT
<met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 5:06 PM
> > > > > > > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > > > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu
#96729]
> > > > > > > > > > Use of
> > > > > > > > > > TP06
> > > > > > > > field
> > > > > > > > > > in Prepbufr data
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Bob,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Nothing immediately jumps out at me as an obvious
> problem.
> > > > > > > > > > There's
> > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > multiple steps occurring here:
> > > > > > > > > > (1) Configure/run pb2nc and retain TP06
observations.
> > > > > > > > > > (2) Configure/run point_stat to verify against
those
> > > > > observations.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'd recommend making sure that (1) works as
expected.
> > > > > > > > > > You could do so,
> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > running plot_point_obs on the output from pb2nc.
Use
> > > > > > > > > > the "-obs_var
> > > > > > > > TP06"
> > > > > > > > > > command line option to only process observations
of
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > type.
> > > > > > > > > > If there are red dots in the output postscript
image,
> > > > > > > > > > then you know you
> > > > > > > > > successfully
> > > > > > > > > > retained them. If not, then you need to work on
the
> > > > > > > > > > PB2NC
> > > > > > > > configuration.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Once you know (1) is working, run (2). I don't
know
> > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > "message_type"
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > used for TP06 observations. So we'll need to
figure
> > > > > > > > > > that out and
> > > > > > > > request
> > > > > > > > > > that message type in the Point-Stat config file.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Please let me know how it goes.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > John
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 3:18 PM
> > > > > > > > > > robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Tue Sep 15 15:18:49 2020: Request 96729 was
acted upon.
> > > > > > > > > > > Transaction: Ticket created by
> robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > > > > > > Queue: met_help
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > > > > > > > > Owner: Nobody
> > > > > > > > > > > Requestors: robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > > > > > > Status: new
> > > > > > > > > > > Ticket <URL:
> > > > > > > >
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > John, I am exploring using the TP06 field in
> > > > > > > > > > > Prepbufr data for
> > > > > > > 6hour
> > > > > > > > > > > precip. When I run point stat using TP06 for
ob name
> > and
> > > A6
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > level,
> > > > > > > > > > > met rejects them for ob type. What do people
> > > > > > > > > > > typically use for
> > > > > > > TP06.
> > > > > > > > > > > I will send a prepbufr file to you tomorrow that
I
> > > > > > > > > > > am
> > > using.
> > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > > > > what might be wrong?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
From: robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
Time: Thu Sep 24 09:29:27 2020
John, I got it working. Picking a different day I get up to 9 obs in
the theater.
Thanks
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 4:59 PM
To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
<robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of TP06
field in Prepbufr data
Bob,
I hadn't actually run Point-Stat on the latest files. I just ran
plot_point_obs to figure out why you got 0 matched pairs.
When I tried running Point-Stat, I did NOT get that error message. I
realize though that I'm running met-8.1 + all known bugfixes. That's
the tip of the GitHub branch named "main_v8.1
<https://github.com/dtcenter/MET/tree/main_v8.1>". I wasn't able to
compile met-8.1, as released, because of problems with GNU compiler
versions > 6.3.0. But was able to compile the first bugfix release,
met-8.1.1.
But met-8.1.1 didn't issue that error message either.
I suspect any GRIB1 entry for TP06 in your custom GRIB1 table file
would work.
Sorry I can't be of more help.
John
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 1:58 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
>
> The difference in numbers really isn't there. The SID number is the
> number of unique obs and that matches what I was getting. Sorry for
> that confusion.
>
> I found the discrepancy in why you are getting different results.
> Even though I sent you the prepbufr file that contained TP06, my
> verification runs were using our other home grown precip netcdf
file.
> So now when I run point stat using the correct file it gives me the
following:
> DEBUG 1: User Config File:
>
/h/data/global/WXQC/data/met/config/met_config/PointStatConfig_meps_tp
> _conus_updated
> ERROR :
> ERROR : VarInfoGrib::add_grib_code() -> unrecognized GRIB1 field
> abbreviation 'TP06' for table version 2 ERROR :
>
> I guess this is progress. I added TP06 to the grib1 table in place
of
> APCP but still get the error. Did you have to add TP06 to your grib
1
> tables our was it already there? If so, what was the grib code?
>
> THanks
> Bob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 2:29 PM
> To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of
TP06
> field in Prepbufr data
>
> Bob,
>
> Yes, I agree, this is very odd. You most recently sent me a point
> observation file named "2020091600.nc". When I run Point-Stat, it
> processes
> 758386 observations but when you run it, it processes only 12687 of
them.
> There is nothing in the Point-Stat configuration file that would
cause
> those counts to differ. Point-Stat is supposed to process ALL of the
> input point observations.
>
> Please try running "ncdump -h 2020091600.nc". Here are the dimension
I
> see from that:
>
> > ncdump -h 2020091600.nc
> netcdf \2020091600 {
> dimensions:
> mxstr = 16 ;
> mxstr2 = 40 ;
> mxstr3 = 80 ;
> nobs = 758386 ;
> nhdr = 79055 ;
> npbhdr = 79055 ;
> nhdr_typ = 3 ;
> nhdr_sid = 12226 ;
> nhdr_vld = 181 ;
> nobs_qty = 7 ;
> obs_var_num = 17 ;
>
> Where "nobs = 758386".
>
> Do you see something different from that exact same file?
>
> John
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 1:12 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
> >
> > John,
> >
> > Okay I should have checked the domain - I thought it covered all
of
> > Africa. It is interesting that you show 758386 obs processed. I
> > get a much lower number from the same file. We must have some
> > differences in our config files (I attached ours). Since your map
> > shows lots of
> > TP06 obs over CONUS, I reran the verification for our CONUS
domain
> > and get the same results - see below:
> >
> > Processing PQP1/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation type ADPSFC,
over
> > region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1), using 0 pairs.
> > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12687
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12687
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality
> > marker = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad fcst
> > value = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > DEBUG 2:
> >
> > I sent the CONUS version of the file to you. Attached is also our
> > grib 1 file incase that helps. I also plotted the data and that
is
> attached.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 1:33 PM
> > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of
> > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> >
> > Bob,
> >
> > Great, thanks for sending the updated data. The GRIB table doesn't
> > work because you sent me the Air Force GRIB2 table but your data
is
> > GRIB1. But again, that doesn't really matter.
> >
> > When I run Point-Stat version 8.1, I get 0 matched pairs with
reason
> > codes listed like this:
> >
> > /Volumes/d1/projects/MET/MET_development/MET-
main_v8.1/met/bin/point
> > _s
> > tat \
> > grib.2020091500.0024 \
> > 2020091600.nc \
> > PointStatConfig_meps_tp_cont6_updated \ -outdir out -v 3 ...
> > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 758386
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 750084
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 8302
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality
> > marker = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad fcst
> > value = 0
> > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > ...
> >
> > Looking from the bottom up, I see that we discarded 8302
> > observations that were "off the grid". So perhaps it's the case
that
> > just none of the observations fall inside your domain? Let's run
> > plot_point_obs to
> confirm.
> >
> > First, plot TP06 observations from this file globally:
> > *plot_point_obs 2020091600.nc <http://2020091600.nc>
> > 2020091600_global.ps <http://2020091600_global.ps> -obs_var TP06*
> >
> > Next, use the "-data_file" command line option to restrict to your
> > model
> > domain:
> >
> > *plot_point_obs 2020091600.nc <http://2020091600.nc>
> > 2020091600_model_domain.ps <http://2020091600_model_domain.ps>
> > -obs_var
> > TP06 -data_file grib.2020091500.0024*
> >
> > PNG versions of the resulting images are attached. And that
confirms it.
> > There just aren't any TP06 observations that fall within your
domain
> > on the horn of Africa.
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 11:47 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
> > >
> > > Okay, I got to files that should match sent via DOD safe.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 11:25 AM
> > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use
of
> > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > >
> > > Bob,
> > >
> > > I think we have a disconnect here.
> > >
> > > The point observation file you sent to me is named
"2020080612.nc"
> > > and contains 783635 observations.
> > >
> > > ncdump -h 2020080612.nc | grep nobs nobs = 783635 ;
> > >
> > > But clearly that's not the file you're using in your testing. If
> > > it were, we'd see a log message stating:
> > > Observations processed = 783635
> > >
> > > So I don't think I'm testing the data you're actually using.
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 9:57 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT
<
> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
>
> > > >
> > > > John, I am not seeing a time stamp of 2020 in
> > > > grib.2020091500.0012
> > > > - I am seeing what you see. What I was saying is the MPR
files
> > > > where I verify this model data against obs, the MPR valid time
> > > > lines have the correct dates in them (I attached one) - MET
> > > > seemed to handle the time
> > > format of
> > > > the model file okay. Below is the listing I get when running
point
> > stat
> > > > on this data. All obs are being rejected due to obs type.
> > > >
> > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > >
----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > --
> > > > --
> > > > --
> > > > ----------
> > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > DEBUG 2: Searching 12611 observations from 12611 messages.
> > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > >
----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > --
> > > > --
> > > > --
> > > > ----------
> > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > DEBUG 2: Processing PQP1/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation
type
> > > > ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1),
> > > > using
> > > > 0
> > > pairs.
> > > > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected:
quality
> > > > marker = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad
> > > > fcst value = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > >
----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > --
> > > > --
> > > > --
> > > > ----------
> > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > DEBUG 2: Processing QP010/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation
> > > > type ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method
> > > > NEAREST(1), using
> > > > 0
> > > pairs.
> > > > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected:
quality
> > > > marker = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad
> > > > fcst value = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > >
----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > --
> > > > --
> > > > --
> > > > ----------
> > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > DEBUG 2: Processing QP025/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation
> > > > type ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method
> > > > NEAREST(1), using
> > > > 0
> > > pairs.
> > > > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected:
quality
> > > > marker = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad
> > > > fcst value = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > >
----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > --
> > > > --
> > > > --
> > > > ----------
> > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > DEBUG 2: Processing QP050/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation
> > > > type ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method
> > > > NEAREST(1), using
> > > > 0
> > > pairs.
> > > > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected:
quality
> > > > marker = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad
> > > > fcst value = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > >
----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > --
> > > > --
> > > > --
> > > > ----------
> > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > DEBUG 2: Processing QP100/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation
> > > > type ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method
> > > > NEAREST(1), using
> > > > 0
> > > pairs.
> > > > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected:
quality
> > > > marker = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad
> > > > fcst value = 0
> > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > >
----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > --
> > > > --
> > > > --
> > > > ----------
> > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > DEBUG 1: Output file:
> > > >
/h/data/global/WXQC/data/met/ptstat/mdlob_pairs/meps/TP/point_st
> > > > at _m ep s_cont6_060000L_20200915_060000V.stat
> > > > DEBUG 1: Output file:
> > > >
/h/data/global/WXQC/data/met/ptstat/mdlob_pairs/meps/TP/point_st
> > > > at _m ep s_cont6_060000L_20200915_060000V_pct.txt
> > > > DEBUG 1: Output file:
> > > >
/h/data/global/WXQC/data/met/ptstat/mdlob_pairs/meps/TP/point_st
> > > > at _m ep s_cont6_060000L_20200915_060000V_pstd.txt
> > > > Processing 12hour
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 10:27 AM
> > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use
> > > > of
> > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > >
> > > > Bob,
> > > >
> > > > OK, looking at the point observations in 2020080612.nc, I ran
> > > > the pntnc2ascii.R script to dump the obs to ascii to make them
> > > > easier to look
> > > > at:
> > > >
> > > > Rscript share/met/Rscripts/pntnc2ascii.R 2020080612.nc >
> > > > 2020080612.txt
> > > >
> > > > It contains 783635 point observations. And here's the list of
> > > > variable names present in the 7-th column:
> > > >
> > > > > cat 2020080612.txt | awk '{print $7}' | sort -u | tr '\n' ',
'
> > > >
> > > >
DPT,HGT,PRES,PRMSL,PRWE,RH,SPFH,TMP,TOCC,TP01,TP06,TP12,UGRD,VGR
> > > > D,
> > > > VI
> > > > S,
> > > > WDIR,WIND
> > > >
> > > > And I see that only 9483 are observations of TP06:
> > > > > grep TP06 2020080612.txt | wc -l
> > > > 9483
> > > >
> > > > So the behavior you describe is correct. Point-Stat should
> > > > reject the VAST majority of these point observations based on
> > > > type. Only
> > > > 9483 out of 783635 (about 1%) are observations of TP06.
> > > >
> > > > I really don't know why you're seeing a timestamp of 2020 in
> > > > file you sent named "grib.2020091500.0012". I double-checked
by
> > > > running wgrib on a different machine. Both instance of wgrib
> > > > agree that the timestamp of the data inside that file is 2009.
> > > > See attached wgrib output. But I'll leave it to you to make
sense of that.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 9:13 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via
RT
> > > > < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > John, attached is our grib 2 file we are using. I should
have
> > > > > sent it earlier.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 9:37 AM
> > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729]
Use
> > > > > of
> > > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob,
> > > > >
> > > > > When I run with the data you sent, I get these warnings:
> > > > > WARNING: process_fcst_climo_files() -> no fields matching
> > > > > QP100/A006 found in file: grib.2020091500.0012
> > > > >
> > > > > I assume you're using a custom GRIB table which defines
those
> > > > > variable
> > > > > names: QP010, QP025, and so on
> > > > >
> > > > > Since I don't have that table and couldn't find one
> > > > > referencing those variable names being used by the other DTC
> > > > > Air Force projects, I used wgrib to see the accumulation
> > > > > intervals and range of values and make an educated guess as
to
> > > > > which records correspond to these
> > > variables.
> > > > >
> > > > > Since this is just for testing, it doesn't really matter,
but
> > > > > here's what I
> > > > > guessed:
> > > > > PQP1 = rec4 (name = UVI)
> > > > > QP010 = rec6 (name = HPBL)
> > > > > QP025 = rec7 (name = 5WAVH)
> > > > > QP050 = rec8 (name = CNWAT)
> > > > > QP100 = rec11 (name = BMIXL)
> > > > >
> > > > > So that's why you'll see these weird variable names in my
> > > > > Point-Stat config file. At verbosity level 3, I see the
> > > > > following
> > reason counts:
> > > > >
> > > > > DEBUG 2: Processing BMIXL/A006 versus TP06/A6, for
observation
> > > > > type ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method
> > > > > NEAREST(1), using
> > > > > 0 matched pairs.
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 783635
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: station id = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 774152
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 9483
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected:
> > > > > quality marker = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected:
bad
> > > > > fcst value = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad climo mean = 0 DEBUG
3:
> Rejected:
> > > > > bad climo stdev = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > > > >
> > > > > The order listed in these log messages matches the order of
> > > > > the filtering logic applied. So we had 9483 obs discarded
> > > > > because of valid time. That means we're not getting matches
> > > > > because of an offset
> > > in time.
> > > > >
> > > > > Running wgrib with the "-verf" option, I see:
> > > > >
> > > > > wgrib -verf grib.2020091500.0012| head -1
> > > > >
1:0:d=*20091512*:MSLSA:kpds5=128:kpds6=1:kpds7=0:TR=0:P1=12:P2
> > > > > =0
> > > > > :T
> > > > > im
> > > > > eU
> > > > > =1:sfc:12hr
> > > > > fcst:NAve=0
> > > > >
> > > > > While the timestamp listed in the filename is 2020, the
> > > > > timestamp listed in the data is 2009. And that's why we're
not
> getting matches.
> > > > >
> > > > > If this data really is from 2020 and you can modify the GRIB
> > > > > file, you should correct it to say 2020. If you can't modify
> > > > > the GRIB file, you could upgrade to met-9.1 and make use of
> > > > > the new "set_attr" options to override the metadata of the
> > > > > file. If you look in the user's guide (
> > > > > https://dtcenter.github.io/MET/Users_Guide/data_io.html),
and
> > > > > search
> > > for "set_attr", you'll find the new config file options added in
> met-9.1.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > John
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 2:50 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via
> > > > > RT < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <URL:
> > > > > > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I tried your changes but I could not get it to work. I am
> > > > > > sending you the probability file and the ob file. Our
> > > > > > probability files differ from SREF so this should be a
> > > > > > closer comparison. I tried different combinations of
things
> > > > > > in the met config file, even commenting out the climo
stuff
> > > > > > but still no good. Up until now, we have been using our
own
> > > > > > version of netcdf precip file and that works. But our
data
> > > > > > has very few precip obs over Africa so we need to switch
to
> > > > > > using the
> > > > > Prepbufr data for precip.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > Bob
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 2:24 PM
> > > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729]
> > > > > > Use of
> > > > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bob,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OK, I was successful in getting matched pairs when
comparing
> > > > > > SREF probabilities to the point observations you sent to
me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here's how I tested:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Pulled a sample SREF file from
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
https://nomads.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/data/nccf/com/sref/prod/sref.
> > > > > > 20
> > > > > > 20
> > > > > > 09
> > > > > > 20
> > > > > > /09/ensprod/sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Ran point_stat like this:
> > > > > > /Volumes/d1/projects/MET/MET_development/MET-
main_v9.1/met/b
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > /p
> > > > > > oi
> > > > > > nt
> > > > > > _s
> > > > > > tat \
> > > > > > sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2 2020080612.nc
> > > > > > PointStatConfig_sref \ -outdir out -v 3
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Using the attached config file.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And I see the following matching counts in the log
messages:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > DEBUG 2: Processing PROB(APCP_06>6.350)/A06/PROB versus
> > > > > > TP06/L0, for observation type ADPSFC, over region FULL,
for
> > > > > > interpolation method NEAREST(1), using 5630 matched pairs.
> > > > > > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 5630
> > > > > > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 783635
> > > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: station id = 0
> > > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 774152
> > > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 3853
> > > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My config file has several changes:
> > > > > > - Different way of pulling forecast probabilities,
> > > > > > specifying
> > "prob"
> > > > > > as a dictionary instead of a boolean.
> > > > > > - In the "obs" dictionary, I changed "level" from "A6" to
"L0".
> > > > > > - In the "obs" dictionary, I changed the "cat_thresh" to
be
> > > > > > consistent with the forecast probabilities.
> > > > > > - I disabled the "climo_mean" entry since I don't have
your data.
> > > > > > - I added a few 0's to the "obs_window" setting since the
> > > > > > forecast valid time doesn't match the time of the point
> > observations.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anything in there that might help?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > John
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 10:00 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > via RT < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <URL:
> > > > > > > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sounds good.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 10:57 AM
> > > > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu
#96729]
> > > > > > > Use of
> > > > > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bob,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry for the delay. Yes, I pulled the 2020080612.nc
file.
> > > > > > > I do not have the file with your forecast probabilities.
> > > > > > > So I just grabbed a sample Short-Range Ensemble Forecast
> > > > > > > data file from NOAA/EMC with which to test:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
https://nomads.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/data/nccf/com/sref/prod/sref.
> > > > > > > 20
> > > > > > > 20
> > > > > > > 09
> > > > > > > 20
> > > > > > > /09/ensprod/sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have a couple of meetings this morning but will work
on
> > > > > > > setting up an example and get back to you later today.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > John
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 11:10 AM
robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > > via RT < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > <URL:
> > > > > > > >
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No, still rejecting on obs. Hopefully I can get you
the
> > > > > > > > netcdf ob file on Monday. I will also send the config
> > > > > > > > file I use for PB2NC to see if there are any setting
in
> > > > > > > > there not quite
> > > right.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 11:22 AM
> > > > > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu
> > > > > > > > #96729] Use of
> > > > > > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Bob,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ah OK. I'm looking more closely at your Point-Stat
> > > > > > > > config
> file.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You'll probably need to change:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > FROM:
> > > > > > > > obs = {
> > > > > > > > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > > > > > > > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> > > > > > > > sid_exc = [];
> > > > > > > > field = [
> > > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh
=>
> .01;},
> > > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh
=>
> .10;},
> > > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh
=>
> .25;},
> > > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh
=>
> .50;},
> > > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6"; cat_thresh
=>
> 1.0;}
> > > > > > > > ];
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > TO:
> > > > > > > > obs = {
> > > > > > > > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > > > > > > > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> > > > > > > > sid_exc = [];
> > > > > > > > field = [
> > > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh
=
> >.01;},
> > > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh
=
> >.10;},
> > > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh
=
> >.25;},
> > > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh
=
> >.50;},
> > > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0"; cat_thresh
=
> >1.0;}
> > > > > > > > ];
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There are 2 small changes there. Replacing "A6" with
"L0"
> > > > > > > > and getting rid of white-space between the ">" and the
> > > > > > > > threshold
> > > value.
> > > > > > > > The point observations do not include a way of
> > > > > > > > indicating an "accumulation
> > > > > > > interval".
> > > > > > > > I suspect that's why it's embedded in the variable
name,
> > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > TP06 means 6-hourly total precip.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Please let me know if that produces better results.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > John
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 9:28 AM
robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > > > via RT < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > <URL:
> > > > > > > > >
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=9672
> > > > > > > > > 9
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > John, Both the ADPSFC and SFCSHP have TP06 obs. The
> > > > > > > > > obs are being rejected due to obs type not message
> > > > > > > > > type. I will see what happened to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > DODsafe file. Hopefully I will know more by Monday.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 5:26 PM
> > > > > > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu
> > > > > > > > > #96729] Use of
> > > > > > > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Bob,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I didn't see a DODSAFE message come through, and
I'll
> > > > > > > > > be out of the
> > > > > > > > office
> > > > > > > > > tomorrow.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In your Point-Stat config file, I see that you're
> > > > > > > > > verifying against observations of type "ADPSFC":
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > obs = {
> > > > > > > > > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > > > > > > > > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ]; ...
> > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So we just need to figure out if the PTYPE obs have
> > > > > > > > > that message
> > > > > > type.
> > > > > > > > > Run plot_point_obs using the "-obs_var TP06 -msg_typ
> ADPSFC"
> > > > > > > > > options. If there we get some red dots on the
output,
> > > > > > > > > then we've got the correct message type. If not,
> > > > > > > > > you'll need to figure out the message type used for
> > > > > > > > > TP06 obs and request that in the Point-Stat
> > > > > > > > > configuration file
> > > > > > instead.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > When you run Point-Stat be sure to continue using
the
> > > > > > > > > "-v
> 3"
> > > > > > > > > option to
> > > > > > > > dump
> > > > > > > > > out counts of reason codes for why observations were
> > > > > > > > > or were not used in the verification.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > John
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 1:51 PM
> > > > > > > > > robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT < met_help at ucar.edu>
wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > <URL:
> > > > > > > > > >
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96
> > > > > > > > > > 72
> > > > > > > > > > 9
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > John, I was able to plot the data in
plot_point_obs
> > > > > > > > > > so the data is
> > > > > > > > there.
> > > > > > > > > > Digging in to the NETCDF file which contains the
> > > > > > > > > > data, I see there are three message types
> > > > > > > > > > (ADPSFC,ADPUPR,
> SFCSHP).
> > > > > > > > > > In my config file
> > > > > > > > > (attached)
> > > > > > > > > > I leave the message type field empty which I
thought
> > > > > > > > > > means use them
> > > > > > > > all.
> > > > > > > > > > Using ncdump to peer into the file, I can see
where
> > > > > > > > > > in the variable
> > > > > > > > TP06
> > > > > > > > > > is in the file (variable number 14). I sent the
> > > > > > > > > > netcdf file via
> > > > > > > > DODSAFE.
> > > > > > > > > > Any other things I should check?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT
<met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 5:06 PM
> > > > > > > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > > > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu
> > > > > > > > > > #96729] Use of
> > > > > > > > > > TP06
> > > > > > > > field
> > > > > > > > > > in Prepbufr data
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Bob,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Nothing immediately jumps out at me as an obvious
> problem.
> > > > > > > > > > There's
> > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > multiple steps occurring here:
> > > > > > > > > > (1) Configure/run pb2nc and retain TP06
observations.
> > > > > > > > > > (2) Configure/run point_stat to verify against
those
> > > > > observations.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'd recommend making sure that (1) works as
expected.
> > > > > > > > > > You could do so,
> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > running plot_point_obs on the output from pb2nc.
Use
> > > > > > > > > > the "-obs_var
> > > > > > > > TP06"
> > > > > > > > > > command line option to only process observations
of
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > type.
> > > > > > > > > > If there are red dots in the output postscript
> > > > > > > > > > image, then you know you
> > > > > > > > > successfully
> > > > > > > > > > retained them. If not, then you need to work on
the
> > > > > > > > > > PB2NC
> > > > > > > > configuration.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Once you know (1) is working, run (2). I don't
know
> > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > "message_type"
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > used for TP06 observations. So we'll need to
figure
> > > > > > > > > > that out and
> > > > > > > > request
> > > > > > > > > > that message type in the Point-Stat config file.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Please let me know how it goes.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > John
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 3:18 PM
> > > > > > > > > > robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Tue Sep 15 15:18:49 2020: Request 96729 was
acted upon.
> > > > > > > > > > > Transaction: Ticket created by
> robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > > > > > > Queue: met_help
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > > > > > > > > Owner: Nobody
> > > > > > > > > > > Requestors: robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > > > > > > Status: new
> > > > > > > > > > > Ticket <URL:
> > > > > > > >
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > John, I am exploring using the TP06 field in
> > > > > > > > > > > Prepbufr data for
> > > > > > > 6hour
> > > > > > > > > > > precip. When I run point stat using TP06 for
ob name
> > and
> > > A6
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > level,
> > > > > > > > > > > met rejects them for ob type. What do people
> > > > > > > > > > > typically use for
> > > > > > > TP06.
> > > > > > > > > > > I will send a prepbufr file to you tomorrow that
I
> > > > > > > > > > > am
> > > using.
> > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > > > > what might be wrong?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr data
From: John Halley Gotway
Time: Thu Sep 24 12:54:05 2020
Thanks for letting me know. I'll go ahead and resolve.
John
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 9:29 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
>
> John, I got it working. Picking a different day I get up to 9 obs
in the
> theater.
>
> Thanks
> Bob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 4:59 PM
> To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
<robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of
TP06
> field in Prepbufr data
>
> Bob,
>
> I hadn't actually run Point-Stat on the latest files. I just ran
> plot_point_obs to figure out why you got 0 matched pairs.
>
> When I tried running Point-Stat, I did NOT get that error message. I
> realize though that I'm running met-8.1 + all known bugfixes. That's
the
> tip of the GitHub branch named "main_v8.1 <
> https://github.com/dtcenter/MET/tree/main_v8.1>". I wasn't able to
> compile met-8.1, as released, because of problems with GNU compiler
> versions > 6.3.0. But was able to compile the first bugfix release,
> met-8.1.1.
>
> But met-8.1.1 didn't issue that error message either.
>
> I suspect any GRIB1 entry for TP06 in your custom GRIB1 table file
would
> work.
>
> Sorry I can't be of more help.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 1:58 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
> met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
> >
> > The difference in numbers really isn't there. The SID number is
the
> > number of unique obs and that matches what I was getting. Sorry
for
> > that confusion.
> >
> > I found the discrepancy in why you are getting different results.
> > Even though I sent you the prepbufr file that contained TP06, my
> > verification runs were using our other home grown precip netcdf
file.
> > So now when I run point stat using the correct file it gives me
the
> following:
> > DEBUG 1: User Config File:
> >
/h/data/global/WXQC/data/met/config/met_config/PointStatConfig_meps_tp
> > _conus_updated
> > ERROR :
> > ERROR : VarInfoGrib::add_grib_code() -> unrecognized GRIB1 field
> > abbreviation 'TP06' for table version 2 ERROR :
> >
> > I guess this is progress. I added TP06 to the grib1 table in
place of
> > APCP but still get the error. Did you have to add TP06 to your
grib 1
> > tables our was it already there? If so, what was the grib code?
> >
> > THanks
> > Bob
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 2:29 PM
> > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use of
TP06
> > field in Prepbufr data
> >
> > Bob,
> >
> > Yes, I agree, this is very odd. You most recently sent me a point
> > observation file named "2020091600.nc". When I run Point-Stat, it
> > processes
> > 758386 observations but when you run it, it processes only 12687
of them.
> > There is nothing in the Point-Stat configuration file that would
cause
> > those counts to differ. Point-Stat is supposed to process ALL of
the
> > input point observations.
> >
> > Please try running "ncdump -h 2020091600.nc". Here are the
dimension I
> > see from that:
> >
> > > ncdump -h 2020091600.nc
> > netcdf \2020091600 {
> > dimensions:
> > mxstr = 16 ;
> > mxstr2 = 40 ;
> > mxstr3 = 80 ;
> > nobs = 758386 ;
> > nhdr = 79055 ;
> > npbhdr = 79055 ;
> > nhdr_typ = 3 ;
> > nhdr_sid = 12226 ;
> > nhdr_vld = 181 ;
> > nobs_qty = 7 ;
> > obs_var_num = 17 ;
> >
> > Where "nobs = 758386".
> >
> > Do you see something different from that exact same file?
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 1:12 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
> > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
> > >
> > > John,
> > >
> > > Okay I should have checked the domain - I thought it covered all
of
> > > Africa. It is interesting that you show 758386 obs processed.
I
> > > get a much lower number from the same file. We must have some
> > > differences in our config files (I attached ours). Since your
map
> > > shows lots of
> > > TP06 obs over CONUS, I reran the verification for our CONUS
domain
> > > and get the same results - see below:
> > >
> > > Processing PQP1/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation type ADPSFC,
over
> > > region FULL, for interpolation method NEAREST(1), using 0 pairs.
> > > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12687
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12687
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality
> > > marker = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad
fcst
> > > value = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > > DEBUG 2:
> > >
> > > I sent the CONUS version of the file to you. Attached is also
our
> > > grib 1 file incase that helps. I also plotted the data and that
is
> > attached.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 1:33 PM
> > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use
of
> > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > >
> > > Bob,
> > >
> > > Great, thanks for sending the updated data. The GRIB table
doesn't
> > > work because you sent me the Air Force GRIB2 table but your data
is
> > > GRIB1. But again, that doesn't really matter.
> > >
> > > When I run Point-Stat version 8.1, I get 0 matched pairs with
reason
> > > codes listed like this:
> > >
> > > /Volumes/d1/projects/MET/MET_development/MET-
main_v8.1/met/bin/point
> > > _s
> > > tat \
> > > grib.2020091500.0024 \
> > > 2020091600.nc \
> > > PointStatConfig_meps_tp_cont6_updated \ -outdir out -v 3 ...
> > > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 758386
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 750084
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 8302
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality
> > > marker = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad
fcst
> > > value = 0
> > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > > ...
> > >
> > > Looking from the bottom up, I see that we discarded 8302
> > > observations that were "off the grid". So perhaps it's the case
that
> > > just none of the observations fall inside your domain? Let's run
> > > plot_point_obs to
> > confirm.
> > >
> > > First, plot TP06 observations from this file globally:
> > > *plot_point_obs 2020091600.nc <http://2020091600.nc>
> > > 2020091600_global.ps <http://2020091600_global.ps> -obs_var
TP06*
> > >
> > > Next, use the "-data_file" command line option to restrict to
your
> > > model
> > > domain:
> > >
> > > *plot_point_obs 2020091600.nc <http://2020091600.nc>
> > > 2020091600_model_domain.ps <http://2020091600_model_domain.ps>
> > > -obs_var
> > > TP06 -data_file grib.2020091500.0024*
> > >
> > > PNG versions of the resulting images are attached. And that
confirms
> it.
> > > There just aren't any TP06 observations that fall within your
domain
> > > on the horn of Africa.
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 11:47 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT
<
> > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
>
> > > >
> > > > Okay, I got to files that should match sent via DOD safe.
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 11:25 AM
> > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729] Use
of
> > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > >
> > > > Bob,
> > > >
> > > > I think we have a disconnect here.
> > > >
> > > > The point observation file you sent to me is named
"2020080612.nc"
> > > > and contains 783635 observations.
> > > >
> > > > ncdump -h 2020080612.nc | grep nobs nobs = 783635 ;
> > > >
> > > > But clearly that's not the file you're using in your testing.
If
> > > > it were, we'd see a log message stating:
> > > > Observations processed = 783635
> > > >
> > > > So I don't think I'm testing the data you're actually using.
> > > >
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 9:57 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via
RT <
> > > > met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729 >
> > > > >
> > > > > John, I am not seeing a time stamp of 2020 in
> > > > > grib.2020091500.0012
> > > > > - I am seeing what you see. What I was saying is the MPR
files
> > > > > where I verify this model data against obs, the MPR valid
time
> > > > > lines have the correct dates in them (I attached one) - MET
> > > > > seemed to handle the time
> > > > format of
> > > > > the model file okay. Below is the listing I get when
running
> point
> > > stat
> > > > > on this data. All obs are being rejected due to obs type.
> > > > >
> > > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > >
----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > --
> > > > > --
> > > > > --
> > > > > ----------
> > > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > > DEBUG 2: Searching 12611 observations from 12611 messages.
> > > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > >
----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > --
> > > > > --
> > > > > --
> > > > > ----------
> > > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > > DEBUG 2: Processing PQP1/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation
type
> > > > > ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method
NEAREST(1),
> > > > > using
> > > > > 0
> > > > pairs.
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected:
quality
> > > > > marker = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad
> > > > > fcst value = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > >
----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > --
> > > > > --
> > > > > --
> > > > > ----------
> > > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > > DEBUG 2: Processing QP010/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation
> > > > > type ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method
> > > > > NEAREST(1), using
> > > > > 0
> > > > pairs.
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected:
quality
> > > > > marker = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad
> > > > > fcst value = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > >
----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > --
> > > > > --
> > > > > --
> > > > > ----------
> > > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > > DEBUG 2: Processing QP025/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation
> > > > > type ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method
> > > > > NEAREST(1), using
> > > > > 0
> > > > pairs.
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected:
quality
> > > > > marker = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad
> > > > > fcst value = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > >
----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > --
> > > > > --
> > > > > --
> > > > > ----------
> > > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > > DEBUG 2: Processing QP050/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation
> > > > > type ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method
> > > > > NEAREST(1), using
> > > > > 0
> > > > pairs.
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected:
quality
> > > > > marker = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad
> > > > > fcst value = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > >
----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > --
> > > > > --
> > > > > --
> > > > > ----------
> > > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > > DEBUG 2: Processing QP100/L0 versus TP06/L0, for observation
> > > > > type ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method
> > > > > NEAREST(1), using
> > > > > 0
> > > > pairs.
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 12611
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: SID exclusion = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 12611
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected:
quality
> > > > > marker = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad
> > > > > fcst value = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > >
----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > --
> > > > > --
> > > > > --
> > > > > ----------
> > > > > DEBUG 2:
> > > > > DEBUG 1: Output file:
> > > > >
/h/data/global/WXQC/data/met/ptstat/mdlob_pairs/meps/TP/point_st
> > > > > at _m ep s_cont6_060000L_20200915_060000V.stat
> > > > > DEBUG 1: Output file:
> > > > >
/h/data/global/WXQC/data/met/ptstat/mdlob_pairs/meps/TP/point_st
> > > > > at _m ep s_cont6_060000L_20200915_060000V_pct.txt
> > > > > DEBUG 1: Output file:
> > > > >
/h/data/global/WXQC/data/met/ptstat/mdlob_pairs/meps/TP/point_st
> > > > > at _m ep s_cont6_060000L_20200915_060000V_pstd.txt
> > > > > Processing 12hour
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 10:27 AM
> > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729]
Use
> > > > > of
> > > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob,
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, looking at the point observations in 2020080612.nc, I
ran
> > > > > the pntnc2ascii.R script to dump the obs to ascii to make
them
> > > > > easier to look
> > > > > at:
> > > > >
> > > > > Rscript share/met/Rscripts/pntnc2ascii.R 2020080612.nc >
> > > > > 2020080612.txt
> > > > >
> > > > > It contains 783635 point observations. And here's the list
of
> > > > > variable names present in the 7-th column:
> > > > >
> > > > > > cat 2020080612.txt | awk '{print $7}' | sort -u | tr '\n'
', '
> > > > >
> > > > >
DPT,HGT,PRES,PRMSL,PRWE,RH,SPFH,TMP,TOCC,TP01,TP06,TP12,UGRD,VGR
> > > > > D,
> > > > > VI
> > > > > S,
> > > > > WDIR,WIND
> > > > >
> > > > > And I see that only 9483 are observations of TP06:
> > > > > > grep TP06 2020080612.txt | wc -l
> > > > > 9483
> > > > >
> > > > > So the behavior you describe is correct. Point-Stat should
> > > > > reject the VAST majority of these point observations based
on
> > > > > type. Only
> > > > > 9483 out of 783635 (about 1%) are observations of TP06.
> > > > >
> > > > > I really don't know why you're seeing a timestamp of 2020 in
> > > > > file you sent named "grib.2020091500.0012". I double-checked
by
> > > > > running wgrib on a different machine. Both instance of wgrib
> > > > > agree that the timestamp of the data inside that file is
2009.
> > > > > See attached wgrib output. But I'll leave it to you to make
sense
> of that.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > John
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 9:13 AM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via
RT
> > > > > < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John, attached is our grib 2 file we are using. I should
have
> > > > > > sent it earlier.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bob
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 9:37 AM
> > > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #96729]
Use
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bob,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When I run with the data you sent, I get these warnings:
> > > > > > WARNING: process_fcst_climo_files() -> no fields matching
> > > > > > QP100/A006 found in file: grib.2020091500.0012
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I assume you're using a custom GRIB table which defines
those
> > > > > > variable
> > > > > > names: QP010, QP025, and so on
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since I don't have that table and couldn't find one
> > > > > > referencing those variable names being used by the other
DTC
> > > > > > Air Force projects, I used wgrib to see the accumulation
> > > > > > intervals and range of values and make an educated guess
as to
> > > > > > which records correspond to these
> > > > variables.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since this is just for testing, it doesn't really matter,
but
> > > > > > here's what I
> > > > > > guessed:
> > > > > > PQP1 = rec4 (name = UVI)
> > > > > > QP010 = rec6 (name = HPBL)
> > > > > > QP025 = rec7 (name = 5WAVH)
> > > > > > QP050 = rec8 (name = CNWAT)
> > > > > > QP100 = rec11 (name = BMIXL)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So that's why you'll see these weird variable names in my
> > > > > > Point-Stat config file. At verbosity level 3, I see the
> > > > > > following
> > > reason counts:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > DEBUG 2: Processing BMIXL/A006 versus TP06/A6, for
observation
> > > > > > type ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method
> > > > > > NEAREST(1), using
> > > > > > 0 matched pairs.
> > > > > > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 0
> > > > > > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 783635
> > > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: station id = 0
> > > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 774152
> > > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 9483
> > > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 0
> > > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected:
> > > > > > quality marker = 0
> > > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type = 0
> > > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected:
bad
> > > > > > fcst value = 0 DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad climo mean = 0
DEBUG 3:
> > Rejected:
> > > > > > bad climo stdev = 0
> > > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates = 0
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The order listed in these log messages matches the order
of
> > > > > > the filtering logic applied. So we had 9483 obs discarded
> > > > > > because of valid time. That means we're not getting
matches
> > > > > > because of an offset
> > > > in time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Running wgrib with the "-verf" option, I see:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > wgrib -verf grib.2020091500.0012| head -1
> > > > > >
1:0:d=*20091512*:MSLSA:kpds5=128:kpds6=1:kpds7=0:TR=0:P1=12:P2
> > > > > > =0
> > > > > > :T
> > > > > > im
> > > > > > eU
> > > > > > =1:sfc:12hr
> > > > > > fcst:NAve=0
> > > > > >
> > > > > > While the timestamp listed in the filename is 2020, the
> > > > > > timestamp listed in the data is 2009. And that's why we're
not
> > getting matches.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If this data really is from 2020 and you can modify the
GRIB
> > > > > > file, you should correct it to say 2020. If you can't
modify
> > > > > > the GRIB file, you could upgrade to met-9.1 and make use
of
> > > > > > the new "set_attr" options to override the metadata of the
> > > > > > file. If you look in the user's guide (
> > > > > > https://dtcenter.github.io/MET/Users_Guide/data_io.html),
and
> > > > > > search
> > > > for "set_attr", you'll find the new config file options added
in
> > met-9.1.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > John
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 2:50 PM robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
via
> > > > > > RT < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <URL:
> > > > > > > https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I tried your changes but I could not get it to work. I
am
> > > > > > > sending you the probability file and the ob file. Our
> > > > > > > probability files differ from SREF so this should be a
> > > > > > > closer comparison. I tried different combinations of
things
> > > > > > > in the met config file, even commenting out the climo
stuff
> > > > > > > but still no good. Up until now, we have been using our
own
> > > > > > > version of netcdf precip file and that works. But our
data
> > > > > > > has very few precip obs over Africa so we need to switch
to
> > > > > > > using the
> > > > > > Prepbufr data for precip.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 2:24 PM
> > > > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu
#96729]
> > > > > > > Use of
> > > > > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bob,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > OK, I was successful in getting matched pairs when
comparing
> > > > > > > SREF probabilities to the point observations you sent to
me.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Here's how I tested:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Pulled a sample SREF file from
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
https://nomads.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/data/nccf/com/sref/prod/sref.
> > > > > > > 20
> > > > > > > 20
> > > > > > > 09
> > > > > > > 20
> > > > > > > /09/ensprod/sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Ran point_stat like this:
> > > > > > > /Volumes/d1/projects/MET/MET_development/MET-
main_v9.1/met/b
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > /p
> > > > > > > oi
> > > > > > > nt
> > > > > > > _s
> > > > > > > tat \
> > > > > > > sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2 2020080612.nc
> > > > > > > PointStatConfig_sref \ -outdir out -v 3
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Using the attached config file.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And I see the following matching counts in the log
messages:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > DEBUG 2: Processing PROB(APCP_06>6.350)/A06/PROB versus
> > > > > > > TP06/L0, for observation type ADPSFC, over region FULL,
for
> > > > > > > interpolation method NEAREST(1), using 5630 matched
pairs.
> > > > > > > DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs = 5630
> > > > > > > DEBUG 3: Observations processed = 783635
> > > > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: station id = 0
> > > > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs type = 774152
> > > > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time = 0
> > > > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value = 0
> > > > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid = 3853
> > > > > > > DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography = 0
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My config file has several changes:
> > > > > > > - Different way of pulling forecast probabilities,
> > > > > > > specifying
> > > "prob"
> > > > > > > as a dictionary instead of a boolean.
> > > > > > > - In the "obs" dictionary, I changed "level" from "A6"
to "L0".
> > > > > > > - In the "obs" dictionary, I changed the "cat_thresh" to
be
> > > > > > > consistent with the forecast probabilities.
> > > > > > > - I disabled the "climo_mean" entry since I don't have
your
> data.
> > > > > > > - I added a few 0's to the "obs_window" setting since
the
> > > > > > > forecast valid time doesn't match the time of the point
> > > observations.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Anything in there that might help?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > John
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 10:00 AM
robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > > via RT < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > <URL:
> > > > > > > >
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sounds good.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 10:57 AM
> > > > > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu
#96729]
> > > > > > > > Use of
> > > > > > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Bob,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sorry for the delay. Yes, I pulled the 2020080612.nc
file.
> > > > > > > > I do not have the file with your forecast
probabilities.
> > > > > > > > So I just grabbed a sample Short-Range Ensemble
Forecast
> > > > > > > > data file from NOAA/EMC with which to test:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> https://nomads.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/data/nccf/com/sref/prod/sref.
> > > > > > > > 20
> > > > > > > > 20
> > > > > > > > 09
> > > > > > > > 20
> > > > > > > > /09/ensprod/sref.t09z.pgrb132.prob_3hrly.grib2
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have a couple of meetings this morning but will work
on
> > > > > > > > setting up an example and get back to you later today.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > John
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 11:10 AM
robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > > > via RT < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > <URL:
> > > > > > > > >
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No, still rejecting on obs. Hopefully I can get you
the
> > > > > > > > > netcdf ob file on Monday. I will also send the
config
> > > > > > > > > file I use for PB2NC to see if there are any setting
in
> > > > > > > > > there not quite
> > > > right.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 11:22 AM
> > > > > > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu
> > > > > > > > > #96729] Use of
> > > > > > > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Bob,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ah OK. I'm looking more closely at your Point-Stat
> > > > > > > > > config
> > file.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You'll probably need to change:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > FROM:
> > > > > > > > > obs = {
> > > > > > > > > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > > > > > > > > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> > > > > > > > > sid_exc = [];
> > > > > > > > > field = [
> > > > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6";
cat_thresh =>
> > .01;},
> > > > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6";
cat_thresh =>
> > .10;},
> > > > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6";
cat_thresh =>
> > .25;},
> > > > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6";
cat_thresh =>
> > .50;},
> > > > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "A6";
cat_thresh =>
> > 1.0;}
> > > > > > > > > ];
> > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > TO:
> > > > > > > > > obs = {
> > > > > > > > > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > > > > > > > > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ];
> > > > > > > > > sid_exc = [];
> > > > > > > > > field = [
> > > > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0";
cat_thresh =
> > >.01;},
> > > > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0";
cat_thresh =
> > >.10;},
> > > > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0";
cat_thresh =
> > >.25;},
> > > > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0";
cat_thresh =
> > >.50;},
> > > > > > > > > { name = "TP06"; level = "L0";
cat_thresh =
> > >1.0;}
> > > > > > > > > ];
> > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > There are 2 small changes there. Replacing "A6" with
"L0"
> > > > > > > > > and getting rid of white-space between the ">" and
the
> > > > > > > > > threshold
> > > > value.
> > > > > > > > > The point observations do not include a way of
> > > > > > > > > indicating an "accumulation
> > > > > > > > interval".
> > > > > > > > > I suspect that's why it's embedded in the variable
name,
> > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > TP06 means 6-hourly total precip.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Please let me know if that produces better results.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > John
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 9:28 AM
robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > > > > via RT < met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > <URL:
> > > > > > > > > >
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=9672
> > > > > > > > > > 9
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > John, Both the ADPSFC and SFCSHP have TP06 obs.
The
> > > > > > > > > > obs are being rejected due to obs type not message
> > > > > > > > > > type. I will see what happened to
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > DODsafe file. Hopefully I will know more by
Monday.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT
<met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 5:26 PM
> > > > > > > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > > > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil>
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu
> > > > > > > > > > #96729] Use of
> > > > > > > > > > TP06 field in Prepbufr data
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Bob,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I didn't see a DODSAFE message come through, and
I'll
> > > > > > > > > > be out of the
> > > > > > > > > office
> > > > > > > > > > tomorrow.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > In your Point-Stat config file, I see that you're
> > > > > > > > > > verifying against observations of type "ADPSFC":
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > obs = {
> > > > > > > > > > convert(x) = x/100.0;
> > > > > > > > > > message_type = [ "ADPSFC" ]; ...
> > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So we just need to figure out if the PTYPE obs
have
> > > > > > > > > > that message
> > > > > > > type.
> > > > > > > > > > Run plot_point_obs using the "-obs_var TP06
-msg_typ
> > ADPSFC"
> > > > > > > > > > options. If there we get some red dots on the
output,
> > > > > > > > > > then we've got the correct message type. If not,
> > > > > > > > > > you'll need to figure out the message type used
for
> > > > > > > > > > TP06 obs and request that in the Point-Stat
> > > > > > > > > > configuration file
> > > > > > > instead.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > When you run Point-Stat be sure to continue using
the
> > > > > > > > > > "-v
> > 3"
> > > > > > > > > > option to
> > > > > > > > > dump
> > > > > > > > > > out counts of reason codes for why observations
were
> > > > > > > > > > or were not used in the verification.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > John
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 1:51 PM
> > > > > > > > > > robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > <URL:
> > > > > > > > > > >
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96
> > > > > > > > > > > 72
> > > > > > > > > > > 9
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > John, I was able to plot the data in
plot_point_obs
> > > > > > > > > > > so the data is
> > > > > > > > > there.
> > > > > > > > > > > Digging in to the NETCDF file which contains the
> > > > > > > > > > > data, I see there are three message types
> > > > > > > > > > > (ADPSFC,ADPUPR,
> > SFCSHP).
> > > > > > > > > > > In my config file
> > > > > > > > > > (attached)
> > > > > > > > > > > I leave the message type field empty which I
thought
> > > > > > > > > > > means use them
> > > > > > > > > all.
> > > > > > > > > > > Using ncdump to peer into the file, I can see
where
> > > > > > > > > > > in the variable
> > > > > > > > > TP06
> > > > > > > > > > > is in the file (variable number 14). I sent the
> > > > > > > > > > > netcdf file via
> > > > > > > > > DODSAFE.
> > > > > > > > > > > Any other things I should check?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > From: John Halley Gotway via RT
<met_help at ucar.edu>
> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 5:06 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > To: CRAIG, ROBERT J GS-12 USAF ACC 16 WS/WXD
> > > > > > > > > > > <robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu
> > > > > > > > > > > #96729] Use of
> > > > > > > > > > > TP06
> > > > > > > > > field
> > > > > > > > > > > in Prepbufr data
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Bob,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Nothing immediately jumps out at me as an
obvious
> > problem.
> > > > > > > > > > > There's
> > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > multiple steps occurring here:
> > > > > > > > > > > (1) Configure/run pb2nc and retain TP06
observations.
> > > > > > > > > > > (2) Configure/run point_stat to verify against
those
> > > > > > observations.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'd recommend making sure that (1) works as
expected.
> > > > > > > > > > > You could do so,
> > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > running plot_point_obs on the output from pb2nc.
Use
> > > > > > > > > > > the "-obs_var
> > > > > > > > > TP06"
> > > > > > > > > > > command line option to only process observations
of
> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > type.
> > > > > > > > > > > If there are red dots in the output postscript
> > > > > > > > > > > image, then you know you
> > > > > > > > > > successfully
> > > > > > > > > > > retained them. If not, then you need to work on
the
> > > > > > > > > > > PB2NC
> > > > > > > > > configuration.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Once you know (1) is working, run (2). I don't
know
> > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > "message_type"
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > used for TP06 observations. So we'll need to
figure
> > > > > > > > > > > that out and
> > > > > > > > > request
> > > > > > > > > > > that message type in the Point-Stat config file.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know how it goes.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > John
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 3:18 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Tue Sep 15 15:18:49 2020: Request 96729 was
acted
> upon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Transaction: Ticket created by
> > robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > > > > > > > Queue: met_help
> > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Use of TP06 field in Prepbufr
data
> > > > > > > > > > > > Owner: Nobody
> > > > > > > > > > > > Requestors: robert.craig.2 at us.af.mil
> > > > > > > > > > > > Status: new
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ticket <URL:
> > > > > > > > >
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=96729
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > John, I am exploring using the TP06 field in
> > > > > > > > > > > > Prepbufr data for
> > > > > > > > 6hour
> > > > > > > > > > > > precip. When I run point stat using TP06 for
ob
> name
> > > and
> > > > A6
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > level,
> > > > > > > > > > > > met rejects them for ob type. What do people
> > > > > > > > > > > > typically use for
> > > > > > > > TP06.
> > > > > > > > > > > > I will send a prepbufr file to you tomorrow
that I
> > > > > > > > > > > > am
> > > > using.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > > > > > what might be wrong?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------
More information about the Met_help
mailing list