[Met_help] [rt.rap.ucar.edu #98697] History for METplus series_analysis wrapper cycling question
George McCabe via RT
met_help at ucar.edu
Wed Feb 17 09:59:49 MST 2021
----------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Request
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
we would like to get series_analysis to work with the following files.
Each forecast file INDs4k is named by forecast initialisation date/time and has 24 hourly lead times in the file (spanning the following 24h). The accompanying IITM file is named in exactly the same way and has 24 hourly fields to match the forecast file precisely. Side-by-side each INDs4k and IITM file with the same date/time is perfectly matched up.
In the first instance we used the "(11,*,*)" level specifier in the MET config file to extract the t+12h forecast (valid at 12Z) with the intention of computing a spatial map of contingency-based scores for t+12h for multiple forecasts (which are in separate files). I managed to get this to work fine for a single file in a standalone MET run.
The next step was to try with the wrapper. We can't get the cycling to work correctly. It either seems to cycle but not change the date (using INIT), or just fall over with a key error complaining about the valid_fmt string.
Could you advise on how to set up the INIT vs VALID vs LEAD and how to match up the format strings? I think we're getting ourselves in a tangle because we have to relearn what these terms mean... (we think they mean something different and are just getting confused. Generally our data provision would NOT look like this. The observations would be separate files... Perhaps this IS causing the problem because you wouldn't necessarily consider searching for a lead time in the observation file!
Thanks
Marion
--
Dr Marion Mittermaier Manager: Model diagnostics and novel verification
Met Office FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 330 135 1604
E-mail: marion.mittermaier at metoffice.gov.uk<mailto:marion.mittermaier at metoffice.gov.uk> http://www.metoffice.gov.uk<http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/>
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/people/marion-mittermaier
Associate Editor for 2021: Monthly Weather Review<https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/ams/publications/journals/monthly-weather-review/>
[cid:image003.jpg at 01D70453.CEAE11F0]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Complete Ticket History
----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: METplus series_analysis wrapper cycling question
From: Julie Prestopnik
Time: Tue Feb 16 12:11:24 2021
Hi Marion.
I have assigned your ticket to George McCabe who should be best able
to
address your questions. Please allow a few business days for a
response.
Julie
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 4:07 AM marion.mittermaier at metoffice.gov.uk
via RT <
met_help at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
> Tue Feb 16 04:07:48 2021: Request 98697 was acted upon.
> Transaction: Ticket created by marion.mittermaier at metoffice.gov.uk
> Queue: met_help
> Subject: METplus series_analysis wrapper cycling question
> Owner: Nobody
> Requestors: marion.mittermaier at metoffice.gov.uk
> Status: new
> Ticket <URL:
https://rt.rap.ucar.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=98697 >
>
>
> Hi,
>
> we would like to get series_analysis to work with the following
files.
> Each forecast file INDs4k is named by forecast initialisation
date/time
> and has 24 hourly lead times in the file (spanning the following
24h). The
> accompanying IITM file is named in exactly the same way and has 24
hourly
> fields to match the forecast file precisely. Side-by-side each
INDs4k and
> IITM file with the same date/time is perfectly matched up.
>
> In the first instance we used the "(11,*,*)" level specifier in the
MET
> config file to extract the t+12h forecast (valid at 12Z) with the
intention
> of computing a spatial map of contingency-based scores for t+12h for
> multiple forecasts (which are in separate files). I managed to get
this to
> work fine for a single file in a standalone MET run.
>
> The next step was to try with the wrapper. We can't get the cycling
to
> work correctly. It either seems to cycle but not change the date
(using
> INIT), or just fall over with a key error complaining about the
valid_fmt
> string.
>
> Could you advise on how to set up the INIT vs VALID vs LEAD and how
to
> match up the format strings? I think we're getting ourselves in a
tangle
> because we have to relearn what these terms mean... (we think they
mean
> something different and are just getting confused. Generally our
data
> provision would NOT look like this. The observations would be
separate
> files... Perhaps this IS causing the problem because you wouldn't
> necessarily consider searching for a lead time in the observation
file!
>
>
> Thanks
> Marion
>
> --
> Dr Marion Mittermaier Manager: Model diagnostics and novel
verification
>
> Met Office FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB United Kingdom
> Tel: +44 (0) 330 135 1604
> E-mail: marion.mittermaier at metoffice.gov.uk<mailto:
> marion.mittermaier at metoffice.gov.uk> http://www.metoffice.gov.uk<
> http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/>
>
> http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/people/marion-mittermaier
>
> Associate Editor for 2021: Monthly Weather Review<
> https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/ams/publications/journals/monthly-
weather-review/
> >
>
> [cid:image003.jpg at 01D70453.CEAE11F0]
>
>
>
--
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: METplus series_analysis wrapper cycling question
From: George McCabe
Time: Tue Feb 16 12:37:01 2021
Hi Marion,
For NetCDF time variables, you can specify the actual time you want to
extract in the MET tools. Instead of using:
"(11,*,*)"
you could use:
"(YYYYMMDD_HHMMSS,*,*)"
where YYYYMMDD_HHMMSS is the time of the data you want to use. This
should make it easier to get the correct data for each run.
Using the METplus wrappers in this case, if I am understanding
correctly, you could use the valid time to get the data you need. You
could set:
OBS_VAR1_LEVELS = "({valid?fmt=%Y%m%d_%H%M%S},*,*)"
If you are looping over INIT times and have specified forecast leads
with LEAD_SEQ, then the value for valid time would be computed (INIT +
LEAD) and substituted into the level value for each run time.
Let me know if this does not answer your question and solve your
issue.
Thanks,
George
On Tue Feb 16 04:07:48 2021, marion.mittermaier at metoffice.gov.uk
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we would like to get series_analysis to work with the following
files.
> Each forecast file INDs4k is named by forecast initialisation
> date/time and has 24 hourly lead times in the file (spanning the
> following 24h). The accompanying IITM file is named in exactly the
> same way and has 24 hourly fields to match the forecast file
> precisely. Side-by-side each INDs4k and IITM file with the same
> date/time is perfectly matched up.
>
> In the first instance we used the "(11,*,*)" level specifier in the
> MET config file to extract the t+12h forecast (valid at 12Z) with
the
> intention of computing a spatial map of contingency-based scores for
> t+12h for multiple forecasts (which are in separate files). I
managed
> to get this to work fine for a single file in a standalone MET run.
>
> The next step was to try with the wrapper. We can't get the cycling
to
> work correctly. It either seems to cycle but not change the date
> (using INIT), or just fall over with a key error complaining about
the
> valid_fmt string.
>
> Could you advise on how to set up the INIT vs VALID vs LEAD and how
to
> match up the format strings? I think we're getting ourselves in a
> tangle because we have to relearn what these terms mean... (we think
> they mean something different and are just getting confused.
Generally
> our data provision would NOT look like this. The observations would
be
> separate files... Perhaps this IS causing the problem because you
> wouldn't necessarily consider searching for a lead time in the
> observation file!
>
>
> Thanks
> Marion
>
> --
> Dr Marion Mittermaier Manager: Model diagnostics and novel
> verification
>
> Met Office FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB United Kingdom
> Tel: +44 (0) 330 135 1604
> E-mail:
>
marion.mittermaier at metoffice.gov.uk<mailto:marion.mittermaier at metoffice.gov.uk>
> http://www.metoffice.gov.uk<http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/>
>
> http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/people/marion-mittermaier
>
> Associate Editor for 2021: Monthly Weather
>
Review<https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/ams/publications/journals/monthly-
> weather-review/>
>
> [cid:image003.jpg at 01D70453.CEAE11F0]
------------------------------------------------
More information about the Met_help
mailing list