Ok, thanks for the input everyone. Clearly I should have fact-checked the LDM temperature before bringing this to your attention. I'll forward your replies to our meteorologists here.Thanks again,TJOn Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Steven Levine - NOAA Affiliate <steven.levine@noaa.gov> wrote:TJ,I have a temperature observation of 69 (not 58) at KLDM at 04Z on the 27th. All the obs nearby have temps in the upper 60s/low 70s as well. Our diagnostics also show an ob/analysis difference of 0.6 F at KLDM at that time.The NWS online archive also shows temperatures of 67-69 at KLDM around midnight of the 26th into 27th: http://w1.weather.gov/data/obhistory/KLDM.htmlSteveOn Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Jeffrey Craven - NOAA Federal <jeffrey.craven@noaa.gov> wrote:I think TJ you have already answered your own question.If there are two observations nearby with mid 60s, then what you show makes sense to me. Also, looking at the plots, it appears that your sample point on GFE (68) is not in the same location as the METAR observation plotted at 59/58 with calm winds. The sample point appears to be a little north of the airport. It looks like the analysis is cooler down toward the location of that METAR.Also, there is major mixing of apples and oranges here. The background field used in MatchObsAll in the field and GFE is not equivalent to the background field in the RTMA/URMA.JPCJeff Craven Chief, Statistical Modeling BranchNational Weather Service, W/STI-12Meteorological Development Laboratory (MDL)Room 10410, SSMC2Silver Spring, MD 20910(301) 427-9475 office(816) 506-9783 cell/text@jpcstormhttps://www.weather.gov/mdl/nbm_home On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Thomas Turnage - NOAA Federal <thomas.turnage@noaa.gov> wrote:Hello,I was hoping someone on the list could weigh in on this. The conversation is below and the referenced ppt file is attached. Please let me know if you need additional information.Thanks!TJ----------------------From one of our forecasters...I have attached a Power Point to show the issue I had with URMA last night. I could not get LDM temp to agree, nothing was that cold and it would seem the actual obs should have more weight than it apparently does. Load and Blend did not capture how cold it was up there. Can this be fixed?Reply from our GFE focal pointLoad and Blend still uses the local Obs database, as there is a latency issue with URMA25 in AWIPS/GFE. The URMA25 will be the NWS-wide ground truth field in the near future and development is still ongoing. It's already being used for verification with BOIVerify - and I think your slide points out why sometimes you need to take BOIVerify statistics with a grain of salt. A common theme with both the URMA and Obs Database has been for poor analysis at times at land/lake interfaces and in micro-climates/radiational cooling situations. The Obs database does do a little better in this regard than the URMA, but both were way off as your slide shows. The only explanation I have is that there were two obs within one mile of LDM: LDTM45 and EW9003 which at the time were 65 and 64 respectively when LDM was 59. There is also the issue of the first guess background field which is an amalgam of HRRR, RAP13, NAM12 T analysis.------------------------T.J. TurnageScience and Operations OfficerNOAA - National Weather Service4899 Tim Dougherty Drive SEGrand Rapids, MI 49512-4034phone: 616.949.0643 ext 766e-mail: thomas.turnage@noaa.govweb: weather.gov/grandrapidssocial: NWSGrandRapids -- T.J. TurnageScience and Operations OfficerNOAA - National Weather Service4899 Tim Dougherty Drive SEGrand Rapids, MI 49512-4034phone: 616.949.0643 ext 766e-mail: thomas.turnage@noaa.govweb: weather.gov/grandrapidssocial: NWSGrandRapids
TJ,I have a temperature observation of 69 (not 58) at KLDM at 04Z on the 27th. All the obs nearby have temps in the upper 60s/low 70s as well. Our diagnostics also show an ob/analysis difference of 0.6 F at KLDM at that time.The NWS online archive also shows temperatures of 67-69 at KLDM around midnight of the 26th into 27th: http://w1.weather.gov/data/obhistory/KLDM.htmlSteveOn Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Jeffrey Craven - NOAA Federal <jeffrey.craven@noaa.gov> wrote:I think TJ you have already answered your own question.If there are two observations nearby with mid 60s, then what you show makes sense to me. Also, looking at the plots, it appears that your sample point on GFE (68) is not in the same location as the METAR observation plotted at 59/58 with calm winds. The sample point appears to be a little north of the airport. It looks like the analysis is cooler down toward the location of that METAR.Also, there is major mixing of apples and oranges here. The background field used in MatchObsAll in the field and GFE is not equivalent to the background field in the RTMA/URMA.JPCJeff Craven Chief, Statistical Modeling BranchNational Weather Service, W/STI-12Meteorological Development Laboratory (MDL)Room 10410, SSMC2Silver Spring, MD 20910(301) 427-9475 office(816) 506-9783 cell/text@jpcstormhttps://www.weather.gov/mdl/nbm_home On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Thomas Turnage - NOAA Federal <thomas.turnage@noaa.gov> wrote:Hello,I was hoping someone on the list could weigh in on this. The conversation is below and the referenced ppt file is attached. Please let me know if you need additional information.Thanks!TJ----------------------From one of our forecasters...I have attached a Power Point to show the issue I had with URMA last night. I could not get LDM temp to agree, nothing was that cold and it would seem the actual obs should have more weight than it apparently does. Load and Blend did not capture how cold it was up there. Can this be fixed?Reply from our GFE focal pointLoad and Blend still uses the local Obs database, as there is a latency issue with URMA25 in AWIPS/GFE. The URMA25 will be the NWS-wide ground truth field in the near future and development is still ongoing. It's already being used for verification with BOIVerify - and I think your slide points out why sometimes you need to take BOIVerify statistics with a grain of salt. A common theme with both the URMA and Obs Database has been for poor analysis at times at land/lake interfaces and in micro-climates/radiational cooling situations. The Obs database does do a little better in this regard than the URMA, but both were way off as your slide shows. The only explanation I have is that there were two obs within one mile of LDM: LDTM45 and EW9003 which at the time were 65 and 64 respectively when LDM was 59. There is also the issue of the first guess background field which is an amalgam of HRRR, RAP13, NAM12 T analysis.------------------------T.J. TurnageScience and Operations OfficerNOAA - National Weather Service4899 Tim Dougherty Drive SEGrand Rapids, MI 49512-4034phone: 616.949.0643 ext 766e-mail: thomas.turnage@noaa.govweb: weather.gov/grandrapidssocial: NWSGrandRapids
I think TJ you have already answered your own question.If there are two observations nearby with mid 60s, then what you show makes sense to me. Also, looking at the plots, it appears that your sample point on GFE (68) is not in the same location as the METAR observation plotted at 59/58 with calm winds. The sample point appears to be a little north of the airport. It looks like the analysis is cooler down toward the location of that METAR.Also, there is major mixing of apples and oranges here. The background field used in MatchObsAll in the field and GFE is not equivalent to the background field in the RTMA/URMA.JPCJeff Craven Chief, Statistical Modeling BranchNational Weather Service, W/STI-12Meteorological Development Laboratory (MDL)Room 10410, SSMC2Silver Spring, MD 20910(301) 427-9475 office(816) 506-9783 cell/text@jpcstormhttps://www.weather.gov/mdl/nbm_home On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Thomas Turnage - NOAA Federal <thomas.turnage@noaa.gov> wrote:Hello,I was hoping someone on the list could weigh in on this. The conversation is below and the referenced ppt file is attached. Please let me know if you need additional information.Thanks!TJ----------------------From one of our forecasters...I have attached a Power Point to show the issue I had with URMA last night. I could not get LDM temp to agree, nothing was that cold and it would seem the actual obs should have more weight than it apparently does. Load and Blend did not capture how cold it was up there. Can this be fixed?Reply from our GFE focal pointLoad and Blend still uses the local Obs database, as there is a latency issue with URMA25 in AWIPS/GFE. The URMA25 will be the NWS-wide ground truth field in the near future and development is still ongoing. It's already being used for verification with BOIVerify - and I think your slide points out why sometimes you need to take BOIVerify statistics with a grain of salt. A common theme with both the URMA and Obs Database has been for poor analysis at times at land/lake interfaces and in micro-climates/radiational cooling situations. The Obs database does do a little better in this regard than the URMA, but both were way off as your slide shows. The only explanation I have is that there were two obs within one mile of LDM: LDTM45 and EW9003 which at the time were 65 and 64 respectively when LDM was 59. There is also the issue of the first guess background field which is an amalgam of HRRR, RAP13, NAM12 T analysis.------------------------T.J. TurnageScience and Operations OfficerNOAA - National Weather Service4899 Tim Dougherty Drive SEGrand Rapids, MI 49512-4034phone: 616.949.0643 ext 766e-mail: thomas.turnage@noaa.govweb: weather.gov/grandrapidssocial: NWSGrandRapids
Hello,I was hoping someone on the list could weigh in on this. The conversation is below and the referenced ppt file is attached. Please let me know if you need additional information.Thanks!TJ----------------------From one of our forecasters...I have attached a Power Point to show the issue I had with URMA last night. I could not get LDM temp to agree, nothing was that cold and it would seem the actual obs should have more weight than it apparently does. Load and Blend did not capture how cold it was up there. Can this be fixed?Reply from our GFE focal pointLoad and Blend still uses the local Obs database, as there is a latency issue with URMA25 in AWIPS/GFE. The URMA25 will be the NWS-wide ground truth field in the near future and development is still ongoing. It's already being used for verification with BOIVerify - and I think your slide points out why sometimes you need to take BOIVerify statistics with a grain of salt. A common theme with both the URMA and Obs Database has been for poor analysis at times at land/lake interfaces and in micro-climates/radiational cooling situations. The Obs database does do a little better in this regard than the URMA, but both were way off as your slide shows. The only explanation I have is that there were two obs within one mile of LDM: LDTM45 and EW9003 which at the time were 65 and 64 respectively when LDM was 59. There is also the issue of the first guess background field which is an amalgam of HRRR, RAP13, NAM12 T analysis.------------------------T.J. TurnageScience and Operations OfficerNOAA - National Weather Service4899 Tim Dougherty Drive SEGrand Rapids, MI 49512-4034phone: 616.949.0643 ext 766e-mail: thomas.turnage@noaa.govweb: weather.gov/grandrapidssocial: NWSGrandRapids
I have attached a Power Point to show the issue I had with URMA last night. I could not get LDM temp to agree, nothing was that cold and it would seem the actual obs should have more weight than it apparently does. Load and Blend did not capture how cold it was up there. Can this be fixed?
Load and Blend still uses the local Obs database, as there is a latency issue with URMA25 in AWIPS/GFE. The URMA25 will be the NWS-wide ground truth field in the near future and development is still ongoing. It's already being used for verification with BOIVerify - and I think your slide points out why sometimes you need to take BOIVerify statistics with a grain of salt. A common theme with both the URMA and Obs Database has been for poor analysis at times at land/lake interfaces and in micro-climates/radiational cooling situations. The Obs database does do a little better in this regard than the URMA, but both were way off as your slide shows. The only explanation I have is that there were two obs within one mile of LDM: LDTM45 and EW9003 which at the time were 65 and 64 respectively when LDM was 59. There is also the issue of the first guess background field which is an amalgam of HRRR, RAP13, NAM12 T analysis.
