[Met_help] [rt.rap.ucar.edu #98617] History for MODE output -- summary of CTS statistics
John Halley Gotway via RT
met_help at ucar.edu
Tue Feb 9 16:18:36 MST 2021
----------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Request
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
Just a quick question to make sure I'm not losing my mind.
I have MODE output for a few similar meteorological cases, and the thought crossed my mind to 'summarize' the CTS results from MODE in these cases. Basically create an 'average' for how the model handled these particular events.
There is no way to do this in MET, correct? Stat_analysis summarizes CTS stats across multiple files, but only for stat files-and mode_analysis only summarizes object statistics. I have this correct, correct?
I can write a script to pull the relevant CTS output out and summarize it, but before I launch that effort I'm just making sure I'm not missing something and that this functionality doesn't already exist in MET.
Thanks!
-Tom
[https://firstenergycorp.com/content/dam/opcologos/emailsig/FE-logo.png]
Thomas Workoff
Sr Scientist
office: 330-436-1475 (850-1475)
tworkoff at firstenergycorp.com
341 White Pond Drive, Akron, OH 44320 | mailstop: A-WAC-C1 / AK-West Akron Campus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete the original message.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Complete Ticket History
----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: MODE output -- summary of CTS statistics
From: Julie Prestopnik
Time: Tue Feb 09 12:57:06 2021
Hi Tom.
Thanks for the question. I believe John Halley Gotway is the best
person
to answer your question, I will assign this ticket to him.
Julie
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 12:28 PM Workoff, Thomas E via RT
<met_help at ucar.edu>
wrote:
>
> Tue Feb 09 12:27:59 2021: Request 98617 was acted upon.
> Transaction: Ticket created by tworkoff at firstenergycorp.com
> Queue: met_help
> Subject: MODE output -- summary of CTS statistics
> Owner: Nobody
> Requestors: tworkoff at firstenergycorp.com
> Status: new
> Ticket <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=98617 >
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Just a quick question to make sure I'm not losing my mind.
>
> I have MODE output for a few similar meteorological cases, and the
thought
> crossed my mind to 'summarize' the CTS results from MODE in these
cases.
> Basically create an 'average' for how the model handled these
particular
> events.
>
> There is no way to do this in MET, correct? Stat_analysis
summarizes CTS
> stats across multiple files, but only for stat files-and
mode_analysis only
> summarizes object statistics. I have this correct, correct?
>
> I can write a script to pull the relevant CTS output out and
summarize it,
> but before I launch that effort I'm just making sure I'm not missing
> something and that this functionality doesn't already exist in MET.
>
> Thanks!
> -Tom
>
> [https://firstenergycorp.com/content/dam/opcologos/emailsig/FE-
logo.png]
>
> Thomas Workoff
> Sr Scientist
> office: 330-436-1475 (850-1475)
> tworkoff at firstenergycorp.com
> 341 White Pond Drive, Akron, OH 44320 | mailstop: A-WAC-C1 / AK-West
Akron
> Campus
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The information contained in this message is intended only for the
> personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If
the
> reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent
> responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby
> notified that you have received this document in error and that any
review,
> dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify
> us immediately, and delete the original message.
>
>
--
Julie Prestopnik (she/her)
Software Engineer
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Research Applications Laboratory
Email: jpresto at ucar.edu
My working day may not be your working day. Please do not feel
obliged to
reply to this email outside of your normal working hours.
------------------------------------------------
Subject: MODE output -- summary of CTS statistics
From: John Halley Gotway
Time: Tue Feb 09 13:33:02 2021
Hi Tom,
You're right, there currently is no functionality within the MET tools
themselves to aggregate multiple "mode*_cts.txt" results across
multiple cases.
However, I want to be totally clear on what that output actually
contains.
It's described here:
https://dtcenter.github.io/MET/develop/Users_Guide/mode.html#mode-
output
The CTS output is just doing a grid-point to grid-point comparison of
the
data. The FIELD = RAW line applies the object definition threshold to
the
raw data values to convert them to 0's and 1's and derives categorical
counts and statistics. The FIELD = OBJECT line has scores for the
derived
object fields, but still grid point by grid point. 1 if that grid
point is
included in an object and 0 if not.
Note that the results are NOT impacted by any matching/merging done by
the
MODE tool. They are just scores for the raw and object fields,
regardless
of whether or not any of them are matched by MODE's logic. They are
provided by way of example to illustrate the type of info you can get
from
a categorical approach versus the additional information that an
object-based approach supplies.
Thanks,
John Halley Gotway
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 12:59 PM Julie Prestopnik via RT
<met_help at ucar.edu>
wrote:
>
> Tue Feb 09 12:59:52 2021: Request 98617 was acted upon.
> Transaction: Given to johnhg (John Halley Gotway) by jpresto
> Queue: met_help
> Subject: MODE output -- summary of CTS statistics
> Owner: johnhg
> Requestors: tworkoff at firstenergycorp.com
> Status: open
> Ticket <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=98617 >
>
>
> This transaction appears to have no content
>
------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #98617] MODE output -- summary of CTS statistics
From: Workoff, Thomas E
Time: Tue Feb 09 14:30:41 2021
Hi John,
As always, thank you for your time and clarification!
Also, thank you for clarifying the *cts output file that MODE
generates. That makes much more sense. When I have rummaged through
15.3.3 in the past, I'd confused myself, especially when trying when
understanding what the separate lines actually entailed.
So, for clarification--the results in the MODE *cts file would be very
similar--if not identical--to running a grid stat analysis, correct?
Obviously MODE uses a time-period (accumulation, max fields, etc)
versus the prototypical 'instantaneous' analysis that is usually used
with grid stat. But if I were to run a 12 hour accumulated
precipitation forecast grid vs. a 12 hour observed precipitation field
grid in grid stat, this would replicate the cts stats generated by a
MODE analysis using the same data--provided my thresholds in the
categorical analysis matched the thresholds to define my MODE objects.
Do I have that right?
That was a mouthful.
I'd been skipping the grid stat analysis portion of my current study
in favor of MODE--that's why I'm just seeking clarification.
Again, I appreciate the help!
-Tom
p.s. this ticket can be closed.
Thomas Workoff
Senior Scientist
Office: 330-436-1475 (850-1475)
tworkoff at firstenergycorp.com
341 White Pond Drive, Akron, OH 44320 | mailstop: A-WAC-C1 / AK-West
Akron Campus
-----Original Message-----
From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 3:33 PM
To: Workoff, Thomas E <tworkoff at firstenergycorp.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #98617] MODE output --
summary of CTS statistics
Hi Tom,
You're right, there currently is no functionality within the MET tools
themselves to aggregate multiple "mode*_cts.txt" results across
multiple cases.
However, I want to be totally clear on what that output actually
contains.
It's described here:
https://secure-web.cisco.com/1lGLHvh3y4afZ_nFvp32oSBG-
LVOavSulT1peYR9qmPIkiolUpe2J91O9QwZUIsILqyoaxF5iY9krDVK7Ai_zUmcInQVzqz0nh9J2z_RFoMqzvnjhHD66cwGrpkL05-
_wecuVJAzIYvcnW94NRe-HE-h0Qf-
IqReXfTLHlMiEv7dTSUUFuj4b6BSikREJAv40YZn4imvJP3AScNooeWHA_EeIUF4crv_DRdhI1Xg69ulhVel4uTvt6VATVQp9CtcC56x5HsdtsvbJc-
evJ45GuIrm2dOLsbj95iNSKUyLJI2hXS8slyXpaXpbdj7gvMoN_wTTvsCP8tkOXuF13QgSnZ2bQqIKLR7AEuSR1mb812rlo9h3_v7Vru9xvybaA1v5/https%3A%2F%2Fdtcenter.github.io%2FMET%2Fdevelop%2FUsers_Guide%2Fmode.html%23mode-
output
The CTS output is just doing a grid-point to grid-point comparison of
the data. The FIELD = RAW line applies the object definition threshold
to the raw data values to convert them to 0's and 1's and derives
categorical counts and statistics. The FIELD = OBJECT line has scores
for the derived object fields, but still grid point by grid point. 1
if that grid point is included in an object and 0 if not.
Note that the results are NOT impacted by any matching/merging done by
the MODE tool. They are just scores for the raw and object fields,
regardless of whether or not any of them are matched by MODE's logic.
They are provided by way of example to illustrate the type of info you
can get from a categorical approach versus the additional information
that an object-based approach supplies.
Thanks,
John Halley Gotway
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 12:59 PM Julie Prestopnik via RT
<met_help at ucar.edu>
wrote:
>
> Tue Feb 09 12:59:52 2021: Request 98617 was acted upon.
> Transaction: Given to johnhg (John Halley Gotway) by jpresto
> Queue: met_help
> Subject: MODE output -- summary of CTS statistics
> Owner: johnhg
> Requestors: tworkoff at firstenergycorp.com
> Status: open
> Ticket <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=98617
> >
>
>
> This transaction appears to have no content
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this message is intended only for the
personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent
responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that
any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify us immediately, and delete the original message.
------------------------------------------------
Subject: MODE output -- summary of CTS statistics
From: John Halley Gotway
Time: Tue Feb 09 14:47:17 2021
Tom,
Yes, that's correct. The contingency table counts/statistics in the
_cts.txt file from MODE for the FIELD=RAW line should be identical to
the
CTC and CTS lines from Grid-Stat. As you noted, that's assuming you
set
cat_thresh in Grid-Stat the same as conv_thresh in MODE.
Similarly, passing the NetCDF output from MODE as input to Grid-Stat
to
compare the fcst and obs object fields with cat_thresh = >0... should
produce the same counts/stats as the FIELD=OBJ line in the _cts.txt
output
from MODE.
If you find that NOT to be the case, please let me know, and I'd have
some
debugging to do.
Thanks,
John
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 2:31 PM Workoff, Thomas E via RT
<met_help at ucar.edu>
wrote:
>
> <URL: https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=98617 >
>
> Hi John,
>
> As always, thank you for your time and clarification!
>
> Also, thank you for clarifying the *cts output file that MODE
generates.
> That makes much more sense. When I have rummaged through 15.3.3 in
the
> past, I'd confused myself, especially when trying when understanding
what
> the separate lines actually entailed.
>
> So, for clarification--the results in the MODE *cts file would be
very
> similar--if not identical--to running a grid stat analysis, correct?
> Obviously MODE uses a time-period (accumulation, max fields, etc)
versus
> the prototypical 'instantaneous' analysis that is usually used with
grid
> stat. But if I were to run a 12 hour accumulated precipitation
forecast
> grid vs. a 12 hour observed precipitation field grid in grid stat,
this
> would replicate the cts stats generated by a MODE analysis using the
same
> data--provided my thresholds in the categorical analysis matched the
> thresholds to define my MODE objects. Do I have that right?
>
> That was a mouthful.
>
> I'd been skipping the grid stat analysis portion of my current study
in
> favor of MODE--that's why I'm just seeking clarification.
>
> Again, I appreciate the help!
>
> -Tom
>
> p.s. this ticket can be closed.
>
>
>
>
> Thomas Workoff
> Senior Scientist
> Office: 330-436-1475 (850-1475)
> tworkoff at firstenergycorp.com
> 341 White Pond Drive, Akron, OH 44320 | mailstop: A-WAC-C1 / AK-West
Akron
> Campus
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Halley Gotway via RT <met_help at ucar.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 3:33 PM
> To: Workoff, Thomas E <tworkoff at firstenergycorp.com>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [rt.rap.ucar.edu #98617] MODE output --
summary
> of CTS statistics
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> You're right, there currently is no functionality within the MET
tools
> themselves to aggregate multiple "mode*_cts.txt" results across
multiple
> cases.
>
> However, I want to be totally clear on what that output actually
contains.
> It's described here:
>
> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1lGLHvh3y4afZ_nFvp32oSBG-
LVOavSulT1peYR9qmPIkiolUpe2J91O9QwZUIsILqyoaxF5iY9krDVK7Ai_zUmcInQVzqz0nh9J2z_RFoMqzvnjhHD66cwGrpkL05-
_wecuVJAzIYvcnW94NRe-HE-h0Qf-
IqReXfTLHlMiEv7dTSUUFuj4b6BSikREJAv40YZn4imvJP3AScNooeWHA_EeIUF4crv_DRdhI1Xg69ulhVel4uTvt6VATVQp9CtcC56x5HsdtsvbJc-
evJ45GuIrm2dOLsbj95iNSKUyLJI2hXS8slyXpaXpbdj7gvMoN_wTTvsCP8tkOXuF13QgSnZ2bQqIKLR7AEuSR1mb812rlo9h3_v7Vru9xvybaA1v5/https%3A%2F%2Fdtcenter.github.io%2FMET%2Fdevelop%2FUsers_Guide%2Fmode.html%23mode-
output
>
> The CTS output is just doing a grid-point to grid-point comparison
of the
> data. The FIELD = RAW line applies the object definition threshold
to the
> raw data values to convert them to 0's and 1's and derives
categorical
> counts and statistics. The FIELD = OBJECT line has scores for the
derived
> object fields, but still grid point by grid point. 1 if that grid
point is
> included in an object and 0 if not.
>
> Note that the results are NOT impacted by any matching/merging done
by the
> MODE tool. They are just scores for the raw and object fields,
regardless
> of whether or not any of them are matched by MODE's logic. They are
> provided by way of example to illustrate the type of info you can
get from
> a categorical approach versus the additional information that an
> object-based approach supplies.
>
> Thanks,
> John Halley Gotway
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 12:59 PM Julie Prestopnik via RT
<met_help at ucar.edu
> >
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Tue Feb 09 12:59:52 2021: Request 98617 was acted upon.
> > Transaction: Given to johnhg (John Halley Gotway) by jpresto
> > Queue: met_help
> > Subject: MODE output -- summary of CTS statistics
> > Owner: johnhg
> > Requestors: tworkoff at firstenergycorp.com
> > Status: open
> > Ticket <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=98617
> > >
> >
> >
> > This transaction appears to have no content
> >
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The information contained in this message is intended only for the
> personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If
the
> reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent
> responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby
> notified that you have received this document in error and that any
review,
> dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify
> us immediately, and delete the original message.
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------
More information about the Met_help
mailing list