Welcome

Welcome to the RTMA/URMA VLab community!

The purpose of this community is to facilitate feedback and discussion on the RTMA/URMA system. 

Meeting notes are available under the Google Drive Folder linked above.

To learn more about our next upgrade, see the asset publication below.

Use the System Overview to learn more about the system in general.

Use the forum to ask questions about the system and join the discussion with other users and the development team. 

Note that there are two forums: one for precipitation issues and one for all other variables.

You can post to the precip issues forum by sending an email to qpe.rtma.urma.feedback.vlab@noaa.gov.  For all other issues, you can post by sending an email to rtma.feedback.vlab@noaa.gov.  Please note that you must have a user account to post to the forum.  If you do not have an account, please contact matthew.t.morris@noaa.gov.

We recently added the ability for NWS Regional or WFO personnel to request that stations be removed from the analysis.  To access this, click on the "Station Reject Lists and Requests" tab.

There has been recent interest in knowing exact station locations, especially those of METAR sites.  Our METAR information table is under the "METAR Location Info" tab.

Users may also be interested in the National Blend of Models VLab community.

We appreciate any feedback on how this page or community could be improved.  You can submit such feedback via the above email handle or forum.

 

What's New

December 2017 Implementation Summary

Document

Overview of upgrade scheduled for December 2017. Note that this was originally scheduled for October 2017, but has been pushed back due to technical issues.

SL
More Details
Modified Date
10/31/17

Forums

Back

RE: Temp issues interior San Francisco Bay Area in both operational/paralle

RSS (Opens New Window)(Opens New Window)
WB
Warren Blier, modified 6 Years ago.

Temp issues interior San Francisco Bay Area in both operational/parallel UR

Youngling Posts: 14 Join Date: 9/24/12 Recent Posts
Developers,

Something odd is going on here -- see attached graphics.  The 72 deg at the mountain summit appears to be a bad obs (should be 80 as in the 3rd graphic), but not sure that fully explains the apparent "wall of heat" along the lower portion of an interior upward slope?  Elevation changes are modest (2nd graphic).  Slight apparent mitigation in the URMA Parallel (4th graphic), but still there. 

Thanks,

Warren

------------------------------
Warren Blier, Ph.D.
Science and Operations Officer
NOAA/National Weather Service
San Francisco Bay Area/Monterey Forecast Office
21 Grace Hopper Ave, Stop 5
Monterey, CA 93943-5505
831-656-1710 x224 (office)
831-656-1724 (ops floor)


Attachments:

Attachment

Attachment

Attachment

Attachment

SL
Steven Levine, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Temp issues interior San Francisco Bay Area in both operational/paralle

Youngling Posts: 174 Join Date: 11/13/14 Recent Posts
Warren,

There is indeed a cool ob at the peak (SJS02), but there are several (mostly CWOP) obs either on the slope or at the base that are coming several degrees warmer than the background field - many have maxT's in the high 80's/low 90's.  Worth noting is that the background in the URMAX/parallel is a degree or two cooler at the base, I think that accounts for the slight dulling there.

I attach plots from the prod maxT run (analysis/guess/increments) valid on the 11th as an example.  Southwest of the peak, AS459 recorded at high of 89, E6541 recorded a high of 90, E1628 recorded a high of 89.  The hottest grid box of 95 correlated pretty well with E6555, which reported a high of 94.  Those obs seem to justify the wall of heat.

Steve

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 7:45 PM, VLab Notifications <VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov> wrote:
Developers,

Something odd is going on here -- see attached graphics.  The 72 deg at the mountain summit appears to be a bad obs (should be 80 as in the 3rd graphic), but not sure that fully explains the apparent "wall of heat" along the lower portion of an interior upward slope?  Elevation changes are modest (2nd graphic).  Slight apparent mitigation in the URMA Parallel (4th graphic), but still there. 

Thanks,

Warren

------------------------------
Warren Blier, Ph.D.
Science and Operations Officer
NOAA/National Weather Service
San Francisco Bay Area/Monterey Forecast Office
21 Grace Hopper Ave, Stop 5
Monterey, CA 93943-5505
831-656-1710 x224 (office)
831-656-1724 (ops floor)



--
Warren Blier RTMA/URMA Discussion Group Virtual Lab Forum http://vlab.noaa.gov:8080/web/715073/home/-/message_boards/view_message/4243984VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov

Attachments:

Attachment

Attachment

Attachment

WB
Warren Blier, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Temp issues interior San Francisco Bay Area in both operational/paralle

Youngling Posts: 14 Join Date: 9/24/12 Recent Posts
Steve,

Really appreciate the follow-up, thanks.  In the actual physical world however, there is no wall of heat there.  I'm quite familiar with both that area and the meteorological conditions then prevailing, and that simply isn't what one would encounter.  Temperature there on that day would vary appreciably only with elevation.  And I believe that's where the problem is.

What is the actual definition of the temperature/max temp of a 2.5 x 2.5 km NDFD grid pixel?  Here's what's stated in Appendix A of NWSI 10-201:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"2      Overarching Grid Element Concept and Guidelines
Element values represent conditions of meteorological fields at 
the resolution of the grid."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The mean elevation of the grid pixel containing the peak is 2,818 ft.  The one observation site in that pixel, SJS02, is at the summit elevation of 3,849 ft and reported a MaxT of 72 deg.  The 3 closest stations to the west and southwest have MaxTs of 89 deg at 296 ft, 86 deg at 853 ft, and 89 deg at 817 ft (Fig 1).  So around 15 deg in 3000 ft which is close to dry adiabatic (5.38 deg/1000 ft).

Thus 72 deg at the summit elevation would correspond to ~ 77 deg for the 2,818 ft mean elevation of the pixel.  The pixel immediately to its west (across the "wall of heat") has a mean elevation of 1,509 ft.  Continuing down at 5 deg/1000 ft yields a pixel max temp of ~ 84 deg.

Now instead of having a "wall of heat" with a 19 deg difference between adjoining pixels as in the URMA (Fig 2), it's only 7 deg, from 77 to 84 -- perfectly reasonable given the difference in respective mean pixel elevations.  

This in turn is entirely consistent with what our final in-house Max T obs grid had: 77 deg to 83 deg (Fig 3).  It's also consistent with the short-range HRRR forecast of 79 deg to 84 deg (Fig 4), and our own final official forecast of 77 to 85 deg (Fig 5).

With apologies, continue to believe there's a fundamental methodological flaw (or alternatively an approach inconsistent with the basic NDFD grid definition).  And am concerned as to the adverse consequences it could have on our forecast verification.

Best Regards,

Warren

P.S. Summit Max T obs of 72 appears to be valid (in contrast to what I wrote in my first email).


On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 12:14 PM, VLab Notifications <VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov> wrote:
Warren,

There is indeed a cool ob at the peak (SJS02), but there are several (mostly CWOP) obs either on the slope or at the base that are coming several degrees warmer than the background field - many have maxT's in the high 80's/low 90's.  Worth noting is that the background in the URMAX/parallel is a degree or two cooler at the base, I think that accounts for the slight dulling there.

I attach plots from the prod maxT run (analysis/guess/increments) valid on the 11th as an example.  Southwest of the peak, AS459 recorded at high of 89, E6541 recorded a high of 90, E1628 recorded a high of 89.  The hottest grid box of 95 correlated pretty well with E6555, which reported a high of 94.  Those obs seem to justify the wall of heat.

Steve

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 7:45 PM, VLab Notifications <VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov> wrote:
Developers,

Something odd is going on here -- see attached graphics.  The 72 deg at the mountain summit appears to be a bad obs (should be 80 as in the 3rd graphic), but not sure that fully explains the apparent "wall of heat" along the lower portion of an interior upward slope?  Elevation changes are modest (2nd graphic).  Slight apparent mitigation in the URMA Parallel (4th graphic), but still there. 

Thanks,

Warren

------------------------------
Warren Blier, Ph.D.
Science and Operations Officer
NOAA/National Weather Service
San Francisco Bay Area/Monterey Forecast Office
21 Grace Hopper Ave, Stop 5
Monterey, CA 93943-5505
831-656-1710 x224 (office)
831-656-1724 (ops floor)



--
Warren Blier RTMA/URMA Discussion Group Virtual Lab Forum http://vlab.noaa.gov:8080/web/715073/home/-/message_boards/view_message/4243984VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov


--
Steven Levine RTMA/URMA Discussion Group Virtual Lab Forum http://vlab.noaa.gov/web/715073/home/-/message_boards/view_message/4256241VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov

Attachments:

Attachment

Attachment

Attachment

Attachment

Attachment

JC
Jacob Carley, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Temp issues interior San Francisco Bay Area in both operational/paralle

Youngling Posts: 69 Join Date: 12/17/14 Recent Posts
Hi Warren,

Thanks very much for the thorough and candid feedback.  I've sent you a separate note so we can follow up on this offline and we can chat about this case, and the associated issue/challenges in a bit more detail.

-Jacob

On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 6:42 PM, VLab Notifications <VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov> wrote:
Steve,

Really appreciate the follow-up, thanks.  In the actual physical world however, there is no wall of heat there.  I'm quite familiar with both that area and the meteorological conditions then prevailing, and that simply isn't what one would encounter.  Temperature there on that day would vary appreciably only with elevation.  And I believe that's where the problem is.

What is the actual definition of the temperature/max temp of a 2.5 x 2.5 km NDFD grid pixel?  Here's what's stated in Appendix A of NWSI 10-201:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"2      Overarching Grid Element Concept and Guidelines
Element values represent conditions of meteorological fields at 
the resolution of the grid."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The mean elevation of the grid pixel containing the peak is 2,818 ft.  The one observation site in that pixel, SJS02, is at the summit elevation of 3,849 ft and reported a MaxT of 72 deg.  The 3 closest stations to the west and southwest have MaxTs of 89 deg at 296 ft, 86 deg at 853 ft, and 89 deg at 817 ft (Fig 1).  So around 15 deg in 3000 ft which is close to dry adiabatic (5.38 deg/1000 ft).

Thus 72 deg at the summit elevation would correspond to ~ 77 deg for the 2,818 ft mean elevation of the pixel.  The pixel immediately to its west (across the "wall of heat") has a mean elevation of 1,509 ft.  Continuing down at 5 deg/1000 ft yields a pixel max temp of ~ 84 deg.

Now instead of having a "wall of heat" with a 19 deg difference between adjoining pixels as in the URMA (Fig 2), it's only 7 deg, from 77 to 84 -- perfectly reasonable given the difference in respective mean pixel elevations.  

This in turn is entirely consistent with what our final in-house Max T obs grid had: 77 deg to 83 deg (Fig 3).  It's also consistent with the short-range HRRR forecast of 79 deg to 84 deg (Fig 4), and our own final official forecast of 77 to 85 deg (Fig 5).

With apologies, continue to believe there's a fundamental methodological flaw (or alternatively an approach inconsistent with the basic NDFD grid definition).  And am concerned as to the adverse consequences it could have on our forecast verification.

Best Regards,

Warren

P.S. Summit Max T obs of 72 appears to be valid (in contrast to what I wrote in my first email).


On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 12:14 PM, VLab Notifications <VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov> wrote:
Warren,

There is indeed a cool ob at the peak (SJS02), but there are several (mostly CWOP) obs either on the slope or at the base that are coming several degrees warmer than the background field - many have maxT's in the high 80's/low 90's.  Worth noting is that the background in the URMAX/parallel is a degree or two cooler at the base, I think that accounts for the slight dulling there.

I attach plots from the prod maxT run (analysis/guess/increments) valid on the 11th as an example.  Southwest of the peak, AS459 recorded at high of 89, E6541 recorded a high of 90, E1628 recorded a high of 89.  The hottest grid box of 95 correlated pretty well with E6555, which reported a high of 94.  Those obs seem to justify the wall of heat.

Steve

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 7:45 PM, VLab Notifications <VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov> wrote:
Developers,

Something odd is going on here -- see attached graphics.  The 72 deg at the mountain summit appears to be a bad obs (should be 80 as in the 3rd graphic), but not sure that fully explains the apparent "wall of heat" along the lower portion of an interior upward slope?  Elevation changes are modest (2nd graphic).  Slight apparent mitigation in the URMA Parallel (4th graphic), but still there. 

Thanks,

Warren

------------------------------
Warren Blier, Ph.D.
Science and Operations Officer
NOAA/National Weather Service
San Francisco Bay Area/Monterey Forecast Office
21 Grace Hopper Ave, Stop 5
Monterey, CA 93943-5505
831-656-1710 x224 (office)
831-656-1724 (ops floor)



--
Warren Blier RTMA/URMA Discussion Group Virtual Lab Forum http://vlab.noaa.gov:8080/web/715073/home/-/message_boards/view_message/4243984VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov


--
Steven Levine RTMA/URMA Discussion Group Virtual Lab Forum http://vlab.noaa.gov/web/715073/home/-/message_boards/view_message/4256241VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov


--
Warren Blier RTMA/URMA Discussion Group Virtual Lab Forum http://vlab.noaa.gov/web/715073/home/-/message_boards/view_message/4257240 VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov

WB
Warren Blier, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Temp issues interior San Francisco Bay Area in both operational/paralle

Youngling Posts: 14 Join Date: 9/24/12 Recent Posts
Appears this problem continues to exist -- see attached figs.

Thanks,

Warren

On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 3:42 PM VLab Notifications <VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov> wrote:
Steve,

Really appreciate the follow-up, thanks.  In the actual physical world however, there is no wall of heat there.  I'm quite familiar with both that area and the meteorological conditions then prevailing, and that simply isn't what one would encounter.  Temperature there on that day would vary appreciably only with elevation.  And I believe that's where the problem is.

What is the actual definition of the temperature/max temp of a 2.5 x 2.5 km NDFD grid pixel?  Here's what's stated in Appendix A of NWSI 10-201:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"2      Overarching Grid Element Concept and Guidelines
Element values represent conditions of meteorological fields at 
the resolution of the grid."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The mean elevation of the grid pixel containing the peak is 2,818 ft.  The one observation site in that pixel, SJS02, is at the summit elevation of 3,849 ft and reported a MaxT of 72 deg.  The 3 closest stations to the west and southwest have MaxTs of 89 deg at 296 ft, 86 deg at 853 ft, and 89 deg at 817 ft (Fig 1).  So around 15 deg in 3000 ft which is close to dry adiabatic (5.38 deg/1000 ft).

Thus 72 deg at the summit elevation would correspond to ~ 77 deg for the 2,818 ft mean elevation of the pixel.  The pixel immediately to its west (across the "wall of heat") has a mean elevation of 1,509 ft.  Continuing down at 5 deg/1000 ft yields a pixel max temp of ~ 84 deg.

Now instead of having a "wall of heat" with a 19 deg difference between adjoining pixels as in the URMA (Fig 2), it's only 7 deg, from 77 to 84 -- perfectly reasonable given the difference in respective mean pixel elevations.  

This in turn is entirely consistent with what our final in-house Max T obs grid had: 77 deg to 83 deg (Fig 3).  It's also consistent with the short-range HRRR forecast of 79 deg to 84 deg (Fig 4), and our own final official forecast of 77 to 85 deg (Fig 5).

With apologies, continue to believe there's a fundamental methodological flaw (or alternatively an approach inconsistent with the basic NDFD grid definition).  And am concerned as to the adverse consequences it could have on our forecast verification.

Best Regards,

Warren

P.S. Summit Max T obs of 72 appears to be valid (in contrast to what I wrote in my first email).


On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 12:14 PM, VLab Notifications <VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov> wrote:
Warren,

There is indeed a cool ob at the peak (SJS02), but there are several (mostly CWOP) obs either on the slope or at the base that are coming several degrees warmer than the background field - many have maxT's in the high 80's/low 90's.  Worth noting is that the background in the URMAX/parallel is a degree or two cooler at the base, I think that accounts for the slight dulling there.

I attach plots from the prod maxT run (analysis/guess/increments) valid on the 11th as an example.  Southwest of the peak, AS459 recorded at high of 89, E6541 recorded a high of 90, E1628 recorded a high of 89.  The hottest grid box of 95 correlated pretty well with E6555, which reported a high of 94.  Those obs seem to justify the wall of heat.

Steve

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 7:45 PM, VLab Notifications <VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov> wrote:
Developers,

Something odd is going on here -- see attached graphics.  The 72 deg at the mountain summit appears to be a bad obs (should be 80 as in the 3rd graphic), but not sure that fully explains the apparent "wall of heat" along the lower portion of an interior upward slope?  Elevation changes are modest (2nd graphic).  Slight apparent mitigation in the URMA Parallel (4th graphic), but still there. 

Thanks,

Warren

------------------------------
Warren Blier, Ph.D.
Science and Operations Officer
NOAA/National Weather Service
San Francisco Bay Area/Monterey Forecast Office
21 Grace Hopper Ave, Stop 5
Monterey, CA 93943-5505
831-656-1710 x224 (office)
831-656-1724 (ops floor)



--
Warren Blier RTMA/URMA Discussion Group Virtual Lab Forum http://vlab.noaa.gov:8080/web/715073/home/-/message_boards/view_message/4243984VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov


--
Steven Levine RTMA/URMA Discussion Group Virtual Lab Forum http://vlab.noaa.gov/web/715073/home/-/message_boards/view_message/4256241VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov


--
Warren Blier RTMA/URMA Discussion Group Virtual Lab Forum http://vlab.noaa.gov/web/715073/home/-/message_boards/view_message/4257240VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov

Attachments:

Attachment

Attachment

JC
Jacob Carley, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Temp issues interior San Francisco Bay Area in both operational/paralle

Youngling Posts: 69 Join Date: 12/17/14 Recent Posts
Hi Warren,

Yes - this was an issue we were not able to get to in time for code freeze for v2.7 in RTMA/URMA.  When we discussed this back in June the parallel system was wrapping up the science evaluation phase.  The package is now in the 30 day IT test with NCO.

This is on our priority list for the next implementation, which is v2.8.

Thanks,
Jacob

On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 9:44 PM VLab Notifications <VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov> wrote:
Appears this problem continues to exist -- see attached figs.

Thanks,

Warren

On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 3:42 PM VLab Notifications <VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov> wrote:
Steve,

Really appreciate the follow-up, thanks.  In the actual physical world however, there is no wall of heat there.  I'm quite familiar with both that area and the meteorological conditions then prevailing, and that simply isn't what one would encounter.  Temperature there on that day would vary appreciably only with elevation.  And I believe that's where the problem is.

What is the actual definition of the temperature/max temp of a 2.5 x 2.5 km NDFD grid pixel?  Here's what's stated in Appendix A of NWSI 10-201:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"2      Overarching Grid Element Concept and Guidelines
Element values represent conditions of meteorological fields at 
the resolution of the grid."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The mean elevation of the grid pixel containing the peak is 2,818 ft.  The one observation site in that pixel, SJS02, is at the summit elevation of 3,849 ft and reported a MaxT of 72 deg.  The 3 closest stations to the west and southwest have MaxTs of 89 deg at 296 ft, 86 deg at 853 ft, and 89 deg at 817 ft (Fig 1).  So around 15 deg in 3000 ft which is close to dry adiabatic (5.38 deg/1000 ft).

Thus 72 deg at the summit elevation would correspond to ~ 77 deg for the 2,818 ft mean elevation of the pixel.  The pixel immediately to its west (across the "wall of heat") has a mean elevation of 1,509 ft.  Continuing down at 5 deg/1000 ft yields a pixel max temp of ~ 84 deg.

Now instead of having a "wall of heat" with a 19 deg difference between adjoining pixels as in the URMA (Fig 2), it's only 7 deg, from 77 to 84 -- perfectly reasonable given the difference in respective mean pixel elevations.  

This in turn is entirely consistent with what our final in-house Max T obs grid had: 77 deg to 83 deg (Fig 3).  It's also consistent with the short-range HRRR forecast of 79 deg to 84 deg (Fig 4), and our own final official forecast of 77 to 85 deg (Fig 5).

With apologies, continue to believe there's a fundamental methodological flaw (or alternatively an approach inconsistent with the basic NDFD grid definition).  And am concerned as to the adverse consequences it could have on our forecast verification.

Best Regards,

Warren

P.S. Summit Max T obs of 72 appears to be valid (in contrast to what I wrote in my first email).


On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 12:14 PM, VLab Notifications <VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov> wrote:
Warren,

There is indeed a cool ob at the peak (SJS02), but there are several (mostly CWOP) obs either on the slope or at the base that are coming several degrees warmer than the background field - many have maxT's in the high 80's/low 90's.  Worth noting is that the background in the URMAX/parallel is a degree or two cooler at the base, I think that accounts for the slight dulling there.

I attach plots from the prod maxT run (analysis/guess/increments) valid on the 11th as an example.  Southwest of the peak, AS459 recorded at high of 89, E6541 recorded a high of 90, E1628 recorded a high of 89.  The hottest grid box of 95 correlated pretty well with E6555, which reported a high of 94.  Those obs seem to justify the wall of heat.

Steve

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 7:45 PM, VLab Notifications <VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov> wrote:
Developers,

Something odd is going on here -- see attached graphics.  The 72 deg at the mountain summit appears to be a bad obs (should be 80 as in the 3rd graphic), but not sure that fully explains the apparent "wall of heat" along the lower portion of an interior upward slope?  Elevation changes are modest (2nd graphic).  Slight apparent mitigation in the URMA Parallel (4th graphic), but still there. 

Thanks,

Warren

------------------------------
Warren Blier, Ph.D.
Science and Operations Officer
NOAA/National Weather Service
San Francisco Bay Area/Monterey Forecast Office
21 Grace Hopper Ave, Stop 5
Monterey, CA 93943-5505
831-656-1710 x224 (office)
831-656-1724 (ops floor)



--
Warren Blier RTMA/URMA Discussion Group Virtual Lab Forum http://vlab.noaa.gov:8080/web/715073/home/-/message_boards/view_message/4243984VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov


--
Steven Levine RTMA/URMA Discussion Group Virtual Lab Forum http://vlab.noaa.gov/web/715073/home/-/message_boards/view_message/4256241VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov


--
Warren Blier RTMA/URMA Discussion Group Virtual Lab Forum http://vlab.noaa.gov/web/715073/home/-/message_boards/view_message/4257240VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov

--
Warren Blier RTMA/URMA Discussion Group Virtual Lab Forum http://vlab.noaa.gov/web/715073/home/-/message_boards/view_message/5101647 VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov
WB
Warren Blier, modified 6 Years ago.

Fwd: [RTMA/URMA Discussion Group - RTMA/URMA Feedback Forum] Temp issues in

Youngling Posts: 14 Join Date: 9/24/12 Recent Posts
Hi Jeff,

Looks like this "wall of heat" problem continues.  From two days ago (warmest day thus far this year in the SF Bay Area):

image.png

Thanks,

Warren

------------------------------
Warren Blier, Ph.D.
Science and Operations Officer
National Weather Service
San Francisco Bay Area/Monterey Forecast Office
21 Grace Hopper Ave, Stop 5
Monterey, CA 93943-5505
831-656-1710 x224 (office)
831-656-1724 (ops floor)


On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 6:15 AM VLab Notifications <VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov> wrote:
Hi Warren,

Yes - this was an issue we were not able to get to in time for code freeze for v2.7 in RTMA/URMA.  When we discussed this back in June the parallel system was wrapping up the science evaluation phase.  The package is now in the 30 day IT test with NCO.

This is on our priority list for the next implementation, which is v2.8.

Thanks,
Jacob

On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 9:44 PM VLab Notifications <VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov> wrote:
Appears this problem continues to exist -- see attached figs.

Thanks,

Warren

On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 3:42 PM VLab Notifications <VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov> wrote:
Steve,

Really appreciate the follow-up, thanks.  In the actual physical world however, there is no wall of heat there.  I'm quite familiar with both that area and the meteorological conditions then prevailing, and that simply isn't what one would encounter.  Temperature there on that day would vary appreciably only with elevation.  And I believe that's where the problem is.

What is the actual definition of the temperature/max temp of a 2.5 x 2.5 km NDFD grid pixel?  Here's what's stated in Appendix A of NWSI 10-201:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"2      Overarching Grid Element Concept and Guidelines
Element values represent conditions of meteorological fields at 
the resolution of the grid."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The mean elevation of the grid pixel containing the peak is 2,818 ft.  The one observation site in that pixel, SJS02, is at the summit elevation of 3,849 ft and reported a MaxT of 72 deg.  The 3 closest stations to the west and southwest have MaxTs of 89 deg at 296 ft, 86 deg at 853 ft, and 89 deg at 817 ft (Fig 1).  So around 15 deg in 3000 ft which is close to dry adiabatic (5.38 deg/1000 ft).

Thus 72 deg at the summit elevation would correspond to ~ 77 deg for the 2,818 ft mean elevation of the pixel.  The pixel immediately to its west (across the "wall of heat") has a mean elevation of 1,509 ft.  Continuing down at 5 deg/1000 ft yields a pixel max temp of ~ 84 deg.

Now instead of having a "wall of heat" with a 19 deg difference between adjoining pixels as in the URMA (Fig 2), it's only 7 deg, from 77 to 84 -- perfectly reasonable given the difference in respective mean pixel elevations.  

This in turn is entirely consistent with what our final in-house Max T obs grid had: 77 deg to 83 deg (Fig 3).  It's also consistent with the short-range HRRR forecast of 79 deg to 84 deg (Fig 4), and our own final official forecast of 77 to 85 deg (Fig 5).

With apologies, continue to believe there's a fundamental methodological flaw (or alternatively an approach inconsistent with the basic NDFD grid definition).  And am concerned as to the adverse consequences it could have on our forecast verification.

Best Regards,

Warren

P.S. Summit Max T obs of 72 appears to be valid (in contrast to what I wrote in my first email).


On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 12:14 PM, VLab Notifications <VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov> wrote:
Warren,

There is indeed a cool ob at the peak (SJS02), but there are several (mostly CWOP) obs either on the slope or at the base that are coming several degrees warmer than the background field - many have maxT's in the high 80's/low 90's.  Worth noting is that the background in the URMAX/parallel is a degree or two cooler at the base, I think that accounts for the slight dulling there.

I attach plots from the prod maxT run (analysis/guess/increments) valid on the 11th as an example.  Southwest of the peak, AS459 recorded at high of 89, E6541 recorded a high of 90, E1628 recorded a high of 89.  The hottest grid box of 95 correlated pretty well with E6555, which reported a high of 94.  Those obs seem to justify the wall of heat.

Steve

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 7:45 PM, VLab Notifications <VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov> wrote:
Developers,

Something odd is going on here -- see attached graphics.  The 72 deg at the mountain summit appears to be a bad obs (should be 80 as in the 3rd graphic), but not sure that fully explains the apparent "wall of heat" along the lower portion of an interior upward slope?  Elevation changes are modest (2nd graphic).  Slight apparent mitigation in the URMA Parallel (4th graphic), but still there. 

Thanks,

Warren

------------------------------
Warren Blier, Ph.D.
Science and Operations Officer
NOAA/National Weather Service
San Francisco Bay Area/Monterey Forecast Office
21 Grace Hopper Ave, Stop 5
Monterey, CA 93943-5505
831-656-1710 x224 (office)
831-656-1724 (ops floor)



--
Warren Blier RTMA/URMA Discussion Group Virtual Lab Forum http://vlab.noaa.gov:8080/web/715073/home/-/message_boards/view_message/4243984VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov


--
Steven Levine RTMA/URMA Discussion Group Virtual Lab Forum http://vlab.noaa.gov/web/715073/home/-/message_boards/view_message/4256241VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov


--
Warren Blier RTMA/URMA Discussion Group Virtual Lab Forum http://vlab.noaa.gov/web/715073/home/-/message_boards/view_message/4257240VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov

--
Warren Blier RTMA/URMA Discussion Group Virtual Lab Forum http://vlab.noaa.gov/web/715073/home/-/message_boards/view_message/5101647 VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov

--
Jacob Carley RTMA/URMA Discussion Group Virtual Lab Forum http://vlab.noaa.gov/web/715073/home/-/message_boards/view_message/5104768 VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov


Attachments:

Attachment

Attachment

Attachment

JC
Jacob Carley, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Fwd: [RTMA/URMA Discussion Group - RTMA/URMA Feedback Forum] Temp issue

Youngling Posts: 69 Join Date: 12/17/14 Recent Posts
Hi Warren,

Thanks for reaching out, I know we had discussed this a while back but it was too late in the v2.7 development process to get something together for v2.7 that was implemented last December.

We are still working on this as a part of the v2.8 upgrade.  In this particular case the RTMA/URMA is likely introducing some sub-gridscale features into the analysis.  We run this risk when trying to fit observations very closely.  In addition, the elevation of the observation(s) may not be consistent with the elevation of NDFD grid for that location, e.g. an ob a the bottom of a steep valley will likely have a lower elevation than the corresponding point on the NDFD grid.  We are looking to include a lapse rate adjustment to the background field to help address this issue.  This lapse rate adjustment will put the background temperature at the same elevation as the observation, facilitating a closer comparison.  However, when the resulting analysis is compared to observations the analysis will appear to not fit the observations quite as closely unless the aforementioned lapse rate adjustment is considered in the context of the comparison.

Thanks,
Jacob

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 7:30 PM VLab Notifications <VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov> wrote:
Hi Jeff,

Looks like this "wall of heat" problem continues.  From two days ago (warmest day thus far this year in the SF Bay Area):

image.png

Thanks,

Warren

------------------------------
Warren Blier, Ph.D.
Science and Operations Officer
National Weather Service
San Francisco Bay Area/Monterey Forecast Office
21 Grace Hopper Ave, Stop 5
Monterey, CA 93943-5505
831-656-1710 x224 (office)
831-656-1724 (ops floor)


On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 6:15 AM VLab Notifications <VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov> wrote:
Hi Warren,

Yes - this was an issue we were not able to get to in time for code freeze for v2.7 in RTMA/URMA.  When we discussed this back in June the parallel system was wrapping up the science evaluation phase.  The package is now in the 30 day IT test with NCO.

This is on our priority list for the next implementation, which is v2.8.

Thanks,
Jacob

On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 9:44 PM VLab Notifications <VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov> wrote:
Appears this problem continues to exist -- see attached figs.

Thanks,

Warren

On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 3:42 PM VLab Notifications <VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov> wrote:
Steve,

Really appreciate the follow-up, thanks.  In the actual physical world however, there is no wall of heat there.  I'm quite familiar with both that area and the meteorological conditions then prevailing, and that simply isn't what one would encounter.  Temperature there on that day would vary appreciably only with elevation.  And I believe that's where the problem is.

What is the actual definition of the temperature/max temp of a 2.5 x 2.5 km NDFD grid pixel?  Here's what's stated in Appendix A of NWSI 10-201:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"2      Overarching Grid Element Concept and Guidelines
Element values represent conditions of meteorological fields at 
the resolution of the grid."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The mean elevation of the grid pixel containing the peak is 2,818 ft.  The one observation site in that pixel, SJS02, is at the summit elevation of 3,849 ft and reported a MaxT of 72 deg.  The 3 closest stations to the west and southwest have MaxTs of 89 deg at 296 ft, 86 deg at 853 ft, and 89 deg at 817 ft (Fig 1).  So around 15 deg in 3000 ft which is close to dry adiabatic (5.38 deg/1000 ft).

Thus 72 deg at the summit elevation would correspond to ~ 77 deg for the 2,818 ft mean elevation of the pixel.  The pixel immediately to its west (across the "wall of heat") has a mean elevation of 1,509 ft.  Continuing down at 5 deg/1000 ft yields a pixel max temp of ~ 84 deg.

Now instead of having a "wall of heat" with a 19 deg difference between adjoining pixels as in the URMA (Fig 2), it's only 7 deg, from 77 to 84 -- perfectly reasonable given the difference in respective mean pixel elevations.  

This in turn is entirely consistent with what our final in-house Max T obs grid had: 77 deg to 83 deg (Fig 3).  It's also consistent with the short-range HRRR forecast of 79 deg to 84 deg (Fig 4), and our own final official forecast of 77 to 85 deg (Fig 5).

With apologies, continue to believe there's a fundamental methodological flaw (or alternatively an approach inconsistent with the basic NDFD grid definition).  And am concerned as to the adverse consequences it could have on our forecast verification.

Best Regards,

Warren

P.S. Summit Max T obs of 72 appears to be valid (in contrast to what I wrote in my first email).


On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 12:14 PM, VLab Notifications <VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov> wrote:
Warren,

There is indeed a cool ob at the peak (SJS02), but there are several (mostly CWOP) obs either on the slope or at the base that are coming several degrees warmer than the background field - many have maxT's in the high 80's/low 90's.  Worth noting is that the background in the URMAX/parallel is a degree or two cooler at the base, I think that accounts for the slight dulling there.

I attach plots from the prod maxT run (analysis/guess/increments) valid on the 11th as an example.  Southwest of the peak, AS459 recorded at high of 89, E6541 recorded a high of 90, E1628 recorded a high of 89.  The hottest grid box of 95 correlated pretty well with E6555, which reported a high of 94.  Those obs seem to justify the wall of heat.

Steve

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 7:45 PM, VLab Notifications <VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov> wrote:
Developers,

Something odd is going on here -- see attached graphics.  The 72 deg at the mountain summit appears to be a bad obs (should be 80 as in the 3rd graphic), but not sure that fully explains the apparent "wall of heat" along the lower portion of an interior upward slope?  Elevation changes are modest (2nd graphic).  Slight apparent mitigation in the URMA Parallel (4th graphic), but still there. 

Thanks,

Warren

------------------------------
Warren Blier, Ph.D.
Science and Operations Officer
NOAA/National Weather Service
San Francisco Bay Area/Monterey Forecast Office
21 Grace Hopper Ave, Stop 5
Monterey, CA 93943-5505
831-656-1710 x224 (office)
831-656-1724 (ops floor)



--
Warren Blier RTMA/URMA Discussion Group Virtual Lab Forum http://vlab.noaa.gov:8080/web/715073/home/-/message_boards/view_message/4243984VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov


--
Steven Levine RTMA/URMA Discussion Group Virtual Lab Forum http://vlab.noaa.gov/web/715073/home/-/message_boards/view_message/4256241VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov


--
Warren Blier RTMA/URMA Discussion Group Virtual Lab Forum http://vlab.noaa.gov/web/715073/home/-/message_boards/view_message/4257240VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov

--
Warren Blier RTMA/URMA Discussion Group Virtual Lab Forum http://vlab.noaa.gov/web/715073/home/-/message_boards/view_message/5101647 VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov

--
Jacob Carley RTMA/URMA Discussion Group Virtual Lab Forum http://vlab.noaa.gov/web/715073/home/-/message_boards/view_message/5104768 VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov



--
Warren Blier RTMA/URMA Discussion Group Virtual Lab Forum http://vlab.noaa.gov/web/715073/home/-/message_boards/view_message/6471055VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov

Attachments:

Attachment

Jeffrey Craven, modified 6 Years ago.

Re: [RTMA/URMA Discussion Group - RTMA/URMA Feedback Forum] Temp issues int

Youngling Posts: 90 Join Date: 9/24/12 Recent Posts
I am not sure I know what I am looking at here, and where the wall is.  Is this RTMA or NBM?  Which version?  WHich forecast period?

JPC

Jeff Craven
Chief, Statistical Modeling Branch
National Weather Service, W/STI-12
Meteorological Development Laboratory (MDL)
Room 10410, SSMC2
Silver Spring, MD 20910
(301) 427-9475 office
(816) 506-9783 cell/text
@jpcstorm


On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 7:26 PM Warren Blier - NOAA Federal <warren.blier@noaa.gov> wrote:
Hi Jeff,

Looks like this "wall of heat" problem continues.  From two days ago (warmest day thus far this year in the SF Bay Area):

image.png

Thanks,

Warren

------------------------------
Warren Blier, Ph.D.
Science and Operations Officer
National Weather Service
San Francisco Bay Area/Monterey Forecast Office
21 Grace Hopper Ave, Stop 5
Monterey, CA 93943-5505
831-656-1710 x224 (office)
831-656-1724 (ops floor)


On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 6:15 AM VLab Notifications <VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov> wrote:
Hi Warren,

Yes - this was an issue we were not able to get to in time for code freeze for v2.7 in RTMA/URMA.  When we discussed this back in June the parallel system was wrapping up the science evaluation phase.  The package is now in the 30 day IT test with NCO.

This is on our priority list for the next implementation, which is v2.8.

Thanks,
Jacob

On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 9:44 PM VLab Notifications <VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov> wrote:
Appears this problem continues to exist -- see attached figs.

Thanks,

Warren

On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 3:42 PM VLab Notifications <VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov> wrote:
Steve,

Really appreciate the follow-up, thanks.  In the actual physical world however, there is no wall of heat there.  I'm quite familiar with both that area and the meteorological conditions then prevailing, and that simply isn't what one would encounter.  Temperature there on that day would vary appreciably only with elevation.  And I believe that's where the problem is.

What is the actual definition of the temperature/max temp of a 2.5 x 2.5 km NDFD grid pixel?  Here's what's stated in Appendix A of NWSI 10-201:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"2      Overarching Grid Element Concept and Guidelines
Element values represent conditions of meteorological fields at 
the resolution of the grid."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The mean elevation of the grid pixel containing the peak is 2,818 ft.  The one observation site in that pixel, SJS02, is at the summit elevation of 3,849 ft and reported a MaxT of 72 deg.  The 3 closest stations to the west and southwest have MaxTs of 89 deg at 296 ft, 86 deg at 853 ft, and 89 deg at 817 ft (Fig 1).  So around 15 deg in 3000 ft which is close to dry adiabatic (5.38 deg/1000 ft).

Thus 72 deg at the summit elevation would correspond to ~ 77 deg for the 2,818 ft mean elevation of the pixel.  The pixel immediately to its west (across the "wall of heat") has a mean elevation of 1,509 ft.  Continuing down at 5 deg/1000 ft yields a pixel max temp of ~ 84 deg.

Now instead of having a "wall of heat" with a 19 deg difference between adjoining pixels as in the URMA (Fig 2), it's only 7 deg, from 77 to 84 -- perfectly reasonable given the difference in respective mean pixel elevations.  

This in turn is entirely consistent with what our final in-house Max T obs grid had: 77 deg to 83 deg (Fig 3).  It's also consistent with the short-range HRRR forecast of 79 deg to 84 deg (Fig 4), and our own final official forecast of 77 to 85 deg (Fig 5).

With apologies, continue to believe there's a fundamental methodological flaw (or alternatively an approach inconsistent with the basic NDFD grid definition).  And am concerned as to the adverse consequences it could have on our forecast verification.

Best Regards,

Warren

P.S. Summit Max T obs of 72 appears to be valid (in contrast to what I wrote in my first email).


On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 12:14 PM, VLab Notifications <VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov> wrote:
Warren,

There is indeed a cool ob at the peak (SJS02), but there are several (mostly CWOP) obs either on the slope or at the base that are coming several degrees warmer than the background field - many have maxT's in the high 80's/low 90's.  Worth noting is that the background in the URMAX/parallel is a degree or two cooler at the base, I think that accounts for the slight dulling there.

I attach plots from the prod maxT run (analysis/guess/increments) valid on the 11th as an example.  Southwest of the peak, AS459 recorded at high of 89, E6541 recorded a high of 90, E1628 recorded a high of 89.  The hottest grid box of 95 correlated pretty well with E6555, which reported a high of 94.  Those obs seem to justify the wall of heat.

Steve

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 7:45 PM, VLab Notifications <VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov> wrote:
Developers,

Something odd is going on here -- see attached graphics.  The 72 deg at the mountain summit appears to be a bad obs (should be 80 as in the 3rd graphic), but not sure that fully explains the apparent "wall of heat" along the lower portion of an interior upward slope?  Elevation changes are modest (2nd graphic).  Slight apparent mitigation in the URMA Parallel (4th graphic), but still there. 

Thanks,

Warren

------------------------------
Warren Blier, Ph.D.
Science and Operations Officer
NOAA/National Weather Service
San Francisco Bay Area/Monterey Forecast Office
21 Grace Hopper Ave, Stop 5
Monterey, CA 93943-5505
831-656-1710 x224 (office)
831-656-1724 (ops floor)



--
Warren Blier RTMA/URMA Discussion Group Virtual Lab Forum http://vlab.noaa.gov:8080/web/715073/home/-/message_boards/view_message/4243984VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov


--
Steven Levine RTMA/URMA Discussion Group Virtual Lab Forum http://vlab.noaa.gov/web/715073/home/-/message_boards/view_message/4256241VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov


--
Warren Blier RTMA/URMA Discussion Group Virtual Lab Forum http://vlab.noaa.gov/web/715073/home/-/message_boards/view_message/4257240VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov

--
Warren Blier RTMA/URMA Discussion Group Virtual Lab Forum http://vlab.noaa.gov/web/715073/home/-/message_boards/view_message/5101647 VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov

--
Jacob Carley RTMA/URMA Discussion Group Virtual Lab Forum http://vlab.noaa.gov/web/715073/home/-/message_boards/view_message/5104768 VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov


Attachments:

Attachment

Bookmarks

Info Icon Descriptive
  • Items Selected
Info Recycle Bin

Home

Folder
# of Items

3

Bookmarks

  • 2011 RTMA Paper (Weather and Forecasting)

    The most recent peer-reviewed paper on the RTMA. Published in Weather and Forecasting in 2011.
    7 Visits

  • Public RTMA/URMA Viewer

    Another viewer of the current RTMA/URMA, with an archive going back 24 hours. This version is open to the public, but does not contain information about the (many) restricted obs used.
    54 Visits

  • RAP downscaling conference preprint (23rd IIPS)

    This link is to a presentation from the (then) RUC group on how the downscaling process works. Although we now use the RAP, HRRR, and NAM, the logic of the downscaling code is mostly unchanged from this point.
    2 Visits