Forums

Back

RE: Re: [awips2dev] [gfe] Obs Grid QC Has Become Worthless

RSS (Opens New Window)(Opens New Window)
Jeffrey Craven, modified 5 Years ago.

Re: [awips2dev] [gfe] Obs Grid QC Has Become Worthless

Youngling Posts: 90 Join Date: 9/24/12 Recent Posts
This is a great conversation.  It should happen in the RTMA forum.

yes I know I am guilty of starting it here.  But lots of folks that could make decisions in AFS (Like YJ Kim) wont see this input.

On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 5:00 PM Don Van Dyke <don.vandyke@noaa.gov> wrote:

What is the current definition of what the 2.5 x 2.5 km grid box value is trying to represent?  I'm honestly not sure.  Is it the average temperature within the box, the max temperature in the box, the min temperature in the box, or the temperature closest to the average of the total number of actual observations in the box, or something else?  Once that is known, then we need to ask ourselves if that definition that we have created serves the public in the best way, or if we need to change our definition of what the grid box values should represent in order to better serve the public.  As a science based service agency, shouldn't we have a science based, objective definition that we define ourselves as an agency that best serves the public, whatever that definition may be?  Is an analysis grid box that's off by 10+ degrees where most of the people live within that box best serving the public?  Perhaps I am suggesting that the grid box definition incorporate a population weighted approach to their values, where more weight to the value of the grid box is given to areas within the box where more population lives or works.  

-Don

On 10/30/2019 4:23 PM, David Metze - NWS Federal wrote:
Example of ground truth mesonet observations, and people in this valley tell us forecasts(in most cases just the NBM) are always too warm for lows.  It always depends...what is "good enough"???  10°+ F errors???  20°+ F errors???   Is it good to have to admit to partners, customers...yes, we know our forecasts are terrible for your area.  And these are simple systematic problems that could be fixed by improved bias correction.   I'm hoping "good enough" does not equal "second to none"...maybe it does now.    

rtma.png



David Metze
ITO
National Weather Service Pueblo, CO(PUB)
719-948-9429 x 486.....ITO Desk
719-948-3838..............Operations Floor


On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 2:00 PM Paul Iniguez - NOAA Federal <paul.iniguez@noaa.gov> wrote:
The image below is the box where KPHX (Phoenix Sky Harbor) is located. The red dot is where the ASOS is. Someone tell me why the grid value must match the dot (which is an observation subject to errors/tolerances). Please note the grid contains several terminals, runways, streets, businesses, a few houses, part of an 8-lane freeway, and a river bed.

image.png

Paul Iñiguez
Science & Operations Officer, NOAA/NWS Phoenix, AZ
602.275.7002 x224 -  Weather.Gov/Phoenix -  @NWSPhoenix -   Facebook.com/NWSPhoenix


On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 10:02 AM Robert Ballard - NOAA Federal <robert.ballard@noaa.gov> wrote:
I'd echo the concerns of others that the RTMA/URMA analysis is very poor (especially in areas of terrain and/or coastline), and falls well short of what's needed to support operations and IDSS at this point.    It's not a philosophical difference, the analysis is simply wrong and unusable in many critical areas.  I have made Pacific Region leadership aware of this on several occasions. 

My 2¢.

- Bob

 --
Robert Ballard
Science & Operations Officer
National Weather Service Honolulu/Central Pacific Hurricane Center


On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 4:56 AM Jeffrey Craven - NOAA Federal <jeffrey.craven@noaa.gov> wrote:
Hello Chad.  There is no requirement for RTMA/URMA to exactly match the observations.  

If this is what the field absolutely needs then it has to be elevated through the governance so that EMC is instructed to match the obs.  There is a balance between the background field and overmatching observations.

I agree that meeting halfway between first guess analysis and obs is not how we have done business in the past.  I have suggested to EMC that RTMA URMA always be forced to be within 3F or 3Knots, etc of the METARS which are the gold standard.  However I have no authority to make that call.

The RTMA and URMA METAR inputs  are overwhelmed by the MADIS observations and each and every WFO must own that and use your expertise to remove and blacklist observations to make it the best it can be.   Many of these problem obs can be removed and greatly improve the RTMA.  

  If you need exact matching the METARS, Your SOO and MIC must ensure that the regional offices push up the chain that this is a requirement.

Up to this point it has not been a requirement; there are quite a few folks that also believe overmatching obs is just as scientifically invalid as those that expect nearly exact matching.

On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 10:29 AM Chad Gimmestad - NOAA Federal <chad.gimmestad@noaa.gov> wrote:
Amen and thank you from Boulder.  

Jeff is right philosophically in where we want to be going, but we need something that's not embarrassing to use TODAY!  Our forecast process is becoming tied to something that's not working well enough yet.  Mountain winds and humidities are analysis problems here everyday, and that is propagating all the way through to the NBM and our forecasts.

Unfortunately, you have to keep the old car running until you have the new car actually working right.  It's an investment no one wants to make. Quicker delivery of an URMA that meets our needs gets us out of this situation sooner, but in the meantime we need good forecasts.
 
Chad Gimmestad
Senior Forecaster
National Weather Service
Boulder, Colorado


On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 2:03 PM Jerry Wiedenfeld - NOAA Federal <jerry.wiedenfeld@noaa.gov> wrote:
Hi All,

I have opened ticket #249109 with NCF.  

Jerry

On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 2:30 PM Alexander Tardy - NOAA Federal <alexander.tardy@noaa.gov> wrote:
Us too at San Diego and we have provided examples of locations such as Palm Springs (3F difference) or other legacy climate sites.
URMA/bias correction needs to include climate sites and the exact value that occurred when known.  The media uses this and someone 50 years from now.
I know that we have microclimates and all the complex terrain and that temperatures vary at day or night every 1 mile but
the climate sites need to be reflected. This builds trust and confidence in our ability to forecast basic weather conditions. 

Thanks, Alex


Alex Tardy

Warning Coordination Meteorologist, Manager
Emergency Preparedness and Partner Collaboration
Education and Outreach Coordinator 
Media and Public Information Officer
Cell: 858-442-6016  Office: 858-675-8700
Skywarn Program Manager
NOAA/National Weather Service
 1144 0 W. Bernardo Court, San Diego, CA

Facebook  page for NWS San Diego
Twitter @NWSSanDiego
We need precipitation reports!  http://cocorahs.org/


On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 12:11 PM Ryan Kittell <ryan.kittell@noaa.gov> wrote:
We (LOX) have a similar situation to the Billings office. We have a number of high profile sites that URMA completely mishandles. We have added mesowest stations and blacklisted sites, which has helped some, but not well enough.  We are still trying to figure out solutions, but until one comes we are reluctant to completely replace MatchObsAll with URMA. 

As such, we still need the ObsQC program and it is crashing and stalling for us after years and years of no issues.


--
Jerry Wiedenfeld 
Information Technology Officer 
National Weather Service, Milwaukee/Sullivan, WI
work phone - 262-392-5526 x 486

--

JPC

Jeff Craven
Chief, Statistical Modeling Division (SMD)
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


-- 
Don Van Dyke
Lead Forecaster
WSR-88D, Storm Data, and Verification Focal Points
NWS Tallahassee, FL
(850) 942-8833
"You have to accomodate automation by doing more
active vigilance - you have to work harder to not
become complacent. " ~Capt. Chesley Sullenberger
--

JPC

Jeff Craven
Chief, Statistical Modeling Division (SMD)
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

Attachments:

Attachment

Attachment

WB
Warren Blier, modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Re: [awips2dev] [gfe] Obs Grid QC Has Become Worthless

Youngling Posts: 14 Join Date: 9/24/12 Recent Posts
>What is the current definition of what the 2.5 x 2.5 km grid box value is trying to represent?

Although I can't find any mention of the RTMA/URMA in the NWS Directives, I'd think it reasonable to assume the definition of what the 2.5 x 2.5 km grid box value is trying to represent is the same as for the corresponding NDFD forecast.  Unfortunately, that's not made as clear as it might be, but there is this in NWSI 10-201 (January 2, 2019) Appendix A - NDFD Element Definitions and Collaboration Thresholds Sec 2:

"2    Overarching Grid Element Concept and Guidelines
Element values represent conditions of meteorological fields at the resolution of the grid. They should not be interpreted as exact point forecasts in time and space."

This seems to imply they should be considered average values over the 2.5 x 2.5 km area, as best as can be determined from the available observations.

Warren

P.S. Agree this is a great discussion.

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



On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 2:07 PM VLab Notifications <VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov> wrote:
This is a great conversation.  It should happen in the RTMA forum.

yes I know I am guilty of starting it here.  But lots of folks that could make decisions in AFS (Like YJ Kim) wont see this input.

On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 5:00 PM Don Van Dyke <don.vandyke@noaa.gov> wrote:

What is the current definition of what the 2.5 x 2.5 km grid box value is trying to represent?  I'm honestly not sure.  Is it the average temperature within the box, the max temperature in the box, the min temperature in the box, or the temperature closest to the average of the total number of actual observations in the box, or something else?  Once that is known, then we need to ask ourselves if that definition that we have created serves the public in the best way, or if we need to change our definition of what the grid box values should represent in order to better serve the public.  As a science based service agency, shouldn't we have a science based, objective definition that we define ourselves as an agency that best serves the public, whatever that definition may be?  Is an analysis grid box that's off by 10+ degrees where most of the people live within that box best serving the public?  Perhaps I am suggesting that the grid box definition incorporate a population weighted approach to their values, where more weight to the value of the grid box is given to areas within the box where more population lives or works.  

-Don

On 10/30/2019 4:23 PM, David Metze - NWS Federal wrote:
Example of ground truth mesonet observations, and people in this valley tell us forecasts(in most cases just the NBM) are always too warm for lows.  It always depends...what is "good enough"???  10°+ F errors???  20°+ F errors???   Is it good to have to admit to partners, customers...yes, we know our forecasts are terrible for your area.  And these are simple systematic problems that could be fixed by improved bias correction.   I'm hoping "good enough" does not equal "second to none"...maybe it does now.    

rtma.png



David Metze
ITO
National Weather Service Pueblo, CO(PUB)
719-948-9429 x 486.....ITO Desk
719-948-3838..............Operations Floor


On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 2:00 PM Paul Iniguez - NOAA Federal <paul.iniguez@noaa.gov> wrote:
The image below is the box where KPHX (Phoenix Sky Harbor) is located. The red dot is where the ASOS is. Someone tell me why the grid value must match the dot (which is an observation subject to errors/tolerances). Please note the grid contains several terminals, runways, streets, businesses, a few houses, part of an 8-lane freeway, and a river bed.

image.png

Paul Iñiguez
Science & Operations Officer, NOAA/NWS Phoenix, AZ
602.275.7002 x224 -  Weather.Gov/Phoenix -  @NWSPhoenix -   Facebook.com/NWSPhoenix


On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 10:02 AM Robert Ballard - NOAA Federal <robert.ballard@noaa.gov> wrote:
I'd echo the concerns of others that the RTMA/URMA analysis is very poor (especially in areas of terrain and/or coastline), and falls well short of what's needed to support operations and IDSS at this point.    It's not a philosophical difference, the analysis is simply wrong and unusable in many critical areas.  I have made Pacific Region leadership aware of this on several occasions. 

My 2¢.

- Bob

 --
Robert Ballard
Science & Operations Officer
National Weather Service Honolulu/Central Pacific Hurricane Center


On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 4:56 AM Jeffrey Craven - NOAA Federal <jeffrey.craven@noaa.gov> wrote:
Hello Chad.  There is no requirement for RTMA/URMA to exactly match the observations.  

If this is what the field absolutely needs then it has to be elevated through the governance so that EMC is instructed to match the obs.  There is a balance between the background field and overmatching observations.

I agree that meeting halfway between first guess analysis and obs is not how we have done business in the past.  I have suggested to EMC that RTMA URMA always be forced to be within 3F or 3Knots, etc of the METARS which are the gold standard.  However I have no authority to make that call.

The RTMA and URMA METAR inputs  are overwhelmed by the MADIS observations and each and every WFO must own that and use your expertise to remove and blacklist observations to make it the best it can be.   Many of these problem obs can be removed and greatly improve the RTMA.  

  If you need exact matching the METARS, Your SOO and MIC must ensure that the regional offices push up the chain that this is a requirement.

Up to this point it has not been a requirement; there are quite a few folks that also believe overmatching obs is just as scientifically invalid as those that expect nearly exact matching.

On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 10:29 AM Chad Gimmestad - NOAA Federal <chad.gimmestad@noaa.gov> wrote:
Amen and thank you from Boulder.  

Jeff is right philosophically in where we want to be going, but we need something that's not embarrassing to use TODAY!  Our forecast process is becoming tied to something that's not working well enough yet.  Mountain winds and humidities are analysis problems here everyday, and that is propagating all the way through to the NBM and our forecasts.

Unfortunately, you have to keep the old car running until you have the new car actually working right.  It's an investment no one wants to make. Quicker delivery of an URMA that meets our needs gets us out of this situation sooner, but in the meantime we need good forecasts.
 
Chad Gimmestad
Senior Forecaster
National Weather Service
Boulder, Colorado


On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 2:03 PM Jerry Wiedenfeld - NOAA Federal <jerry.wiedenfeld@noaa.gov> wrote:
Hi All,

I have opened ticket #249109 with NCF.  

Jerry

On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 2:30 PM Alexander Tardy - NOAA Federal <alexander.tardy@noaa.gov> wrote:
Us too at San Diego and we have provided examples of locations such as Palm Springs (3F difference) or other legacy climate sites.
URMA/bias correction needs to include climate sites and the exact value that occurred when known.  The media uses this and someone 50 years from now.
I know that we have microclimates and all the complex terrain and that temperatures vary at day or night every 1 mile but
the climate sites need to be reflected. This builds trust and confidence in our ability to forecast basic weather conditions. 

Thanks, Alex


Alex Tardy

Warning Coordination Meteorologist, Manager
Emergency Preparedness and Partner Collaboration
Education and Outreach Coordinator 
Media and Public Information Officer
Cell: 858-442-6016  Office: 858-675-8700
Skywarn Program Manager
NOAA/National Weather Service
 1144 0 W. Bernardo Court, San Diego, CA

Facebook  page for NWS San Diego
Twitter @NWSSanDiego
We need precipitation reports!  http://cocorahs.org/


On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 12:11 PM Ryan Kittell <ryan.kittell@noaa.gov> wrote:
We (LOX) have a similar situation to the Billings office. We have a number of high profile sites that URMA completely mishandles. We have added mesowest stations and blacklisted sites, which has helped some, but not well enough.  We are still trying to figure out solutions, but until one comes we are reluctant to completely replace MatchObsAll with URMA. 

As such, we still need the ObsQC program and it is crashing and stalling for us after years and years of no issues.


--
Jerry Wiedenfeld 
Information Technology Officer 
National Weather Service, Milwaukee/Sullivan, WI
work phone - 262-392-5526 x 486

--

JPC

Jeff Craven
Chief, Statistical Modeling Division (SMD)
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


-- 
Don Van Dyke
Lead Forecaster
WSR-88D, Storm Data, and Verification Focal Points
NWS Tallahassee, FL
(850) 942-8833
"You have to accomodate automation by doing more
active vigilance - you have to work harder to not
become complacent. " ~Capt. Chesley Sullenberger
--

JPC

Jeff Craven
Chief, Statistical Modeling Division (SMD)
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

--
Jeffrey Craven RTMA/URMA Discussion Group Virtual Lab Forum http://vlab.noaa.gov/web/715073/home/-/message_boards/view_message/8066283VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov

Attachments:

Attachment

Attachment

Young-Joon Kim, modified 5 Years ago.

RE: Re: [awips2dev] [gfe] Obs Grid QC Has Become Worthless

Youngling Posts: 12 Join Date: 11/15/16 Recent Posts
It is kind of difficult to follow all these comments in the right order, but since my name came up in this particular thread, yes I'm seeing this kind of input and feeling bad, esepcially because it's a recursive one.

I've posted a couple of times in the vLab forum on RTMA/URMA and NBM noting that we (AFS11 or Analysis and Nowcast Branch of AFS) are taking a science-based approach to addressing this fundamental issue, but hardly received any input. 

I see some people asking RTMA/URMA to exactly match the observations or to prescribe a set threshold within which the difference between the analysis and obs. stays.  I agree with the immediate need for doing this and will work on gathering the needs and holding a workshop (in collaboration with Jeff Craven), but from a science point of view I strongly feel that we need a more fundamental approach to alleviate or eliminate this issue.

As some point out this issue is worst over comples terrain (what I call "areas of large terrain variaion" which includes mountainous areas, coastlines and islands), we're focusing on these areas. 

One more time for those who are curious about my thought on how to satify the RTMA/URMA "good-enough list", here is the link to my talk at EMC (a few months old and slightly outdated) with a YouTube link:
https://youtu.be/ibI54yCUWKo [you may want to skip the introduciton on NWS Governance].

In any case, my message here today is that we've recognized this issue quite early and are trying to address it systematically. We have a related MDC-vlidated CaRDS request currently with PIC (Portfolio Integration Council) for potential resource allocation, which if executed will directly address the current issue.

However, we'll start something quicker (like a worshop) to tackle this issue, so please stay tuned.

best regards,

yj kim
AFS Analysis and Nowcast Branch Chief
 




On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 5:07 PM VLab Notifications <VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov> wrote:
This is a great conversation.  It should happen in the RTMA forum.

yes I know I am guilty of starting it here.  But lots of folks that could make decisions in AFS (Like YJ Kim) wont see this input.

On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 5:00 PM Don Van Dyke <don.vandyke@noaa.gov> wrote:

What is the current definition of what the 2.5 x 2.5 km grid box value is trying to represent?  I'm honestly not sure.  Is it the average temperature within the box, the max temperature in the box, the min temperature in the box, or the temperature closest to the average of the total number of actual observations in the box, or something else?  Once that is known, then we need to ask ourselves if that definition that we have created serves the public in the best way, or if we need to change our definition of what the grid box values should represent in order to better serve the public.  As a science based service agency, shouldn't we have a science based, objective definition that we define ourselves as an agency that best serves the public, whatever that definition may be?  Is an analysis grid box that's off by 10+ degrees where most of the people live within that box best serving the public?  Perhaps I am suggesting that the grid box definition incorporate a population weighted approach to their values, where more weight to the value of the grid box is given to areas within the box where more population lives or works.  

-Don

On 10/30/2019 4:23 PM, David Metze - NWS Federal wrote:
Example of ground truth mesonet observations, and people in this valley tell us forecasts(in most cases just the NBM) are always too warm for lows.  It always depends...what is "good enough"???  10°+ F errors???  20°+ F errors???   Is it good to have to admit to partners, customers...yes, we know our forecasts are terrible for your area.  And these are simple systematic problems that could be fixed by improved bias correction.   I'm hoping "good enough" does not equal "second to none"...maybe it does now.    

rtma.png



David Metze
ITO
National Weather Service Pueblo, CO(PUB)
719-948-9429 x 486.....ITO Desk
719-948-3838..............Operations Floor


On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 2:00 PM Paul Iniguez - NOAA Federal <paul.iniguez@noaa.gov> wrote:
The image below is the box where KPHX (Phoenix Sky Harbor) is located. The red dot is where the ASOS is. Someone tell me why the grid value must match the dot (which is an observation subject to errors/tolerances). Please note the grid contains several terminals, runways, streets, businesses, a few houses, part of an 8-lane freeway, and a river bed.

image.png

Paul Iñiguez
Science & Operations Officer, NOAA/NWS Phoenix, AZ
602.275.7002 x224 -  Weather.Gov/Phoenix -  @NWSPhoenix -   Facebook.com/NWSPhoenix


On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 10:02 AM Robert Ballard - NOAA Federal <robert.ballard@noaa.gov> wrote:
I'd echo the concerns of others that the RTMA/URMA analysis is very poor (especially in areas of terrain and/or coastline), and falls well short of what's needed to support operations and IDSS at this point.    It's not a philosophical difference, the analysis is simply wrong and unusable in many critical areas.  I have made Pacific Region leadership aware of this on several occasions. 

My 2¢.

- Bob

 --
Robert Ballard
Science & Operations Officer
National Weather Service Honolulu/Central Pacific Hurricane Center


On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 4:56 AM Jeffrey Craven - NOAA Federal <jeffrey.craven@noaa.gov> wrote:
Hello Chad.  There is no requirement for RTMA/URMA to exactly match the observations.  

If this is what the field absolutely needs then it has to be elevated through the governance so that EMC is instructed to match the obs.  There is a balance between the background field and overmatching observations.

I agree that meeting halfway between first guess analysis and obs is not how we have done business in the past.  I have suggested to EMC that RTMA URMA always be forced to be within 3F or 3Knots, etc of the METARS which are the gold standard.  However I have no authority to make that call.

The RTMA and URMA METAR inputs  are overwhelmed by the MADIS observations and each and every WFO must own that and use your expertise to remove and blacklist observations to make it the best it can be.   Many of these problem obs can be removed and greatly improve the RTMA.  

  If you need exact matching the METARS, Your SOO and MIC must ensure that the regional offices push up the chain that this is a requirement.

Up to this point it has not been a requirement; there are quite a few folks that also believe overmatching obs is just as scientifically invalid as those that expect nearly exact matching.

On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 10:29 AM Chad Gimmestad - NOAA Federal <chad.gimmestad@noaa.gov> wrote:
Amen and thank you from Boulder.  

Jeff is right philosophically in where we want to be going, but we need something that's not embarrassing to use TODAY!  Our forecast process is becoming tied to something that's not working well enough yet.  Mountain winds and humidities are analysis problems here everyday, and that is propagating all the way through to the NBM and our forecasts.

Unfortunately, you have to keep the old car running until you have the new car actually working right.  It's an investment no one wants to make. Quicker delivery of an URMA that meets our needs gets us out of this situation sooner, but in the meantime we need good forecasts.
 
Chad Gimmestad
Senior Forecaster
National Weather Service
Boulder, Colorado


On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 2:03 PM Jerry Wiedenfeld - NOAA Federal <jerry.wiedenfeld@noaa.gov> wrote:
Hi All,

I have opened ticket #249109 with NCF.  

Jerry

On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 2:30 PM Alexander Tardy - NOAA Federal <alexander.tardy@noaa.gov> wrote:
Us too at San Diego and we have provided examples of locations such as Palm Springs (3F difference) or other legacy climate sites.
URMA/bias correction needs to include climate sites and the exact value that occurred when known.  The media uses this and someone 50 years from now.
I know that we have microclimates and all the complex terrain and that temperatures vary at day or night every 1 mile but
the climate sites need to be reflected. This builds trust and confidence in our ability to forecast basic weather conditions. 

Thanks, Alex


Alex Tardy

Warning Coordination Meteorologist, Manager
Emergency Preparedness and Partner Collaboration
Education and Outreach Coordinator 
Media and Public Information Officer
Cell: 858-442-6016  Office: 858-675-8700
Skywarn Program Manager
NOAA/National Weather Service
 1144 0 W. Bernardo Court, San Diego, CA

Facebook  page for NWS San Diego
Twitter @NWSSanDiego
We need precipitation reports!  http://cocorahs.org/


On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 12:11 PM Ryan Kittell <ryan.kittell@noaa.gov> wrote:
We (LOX) have a similar situation to the Billings office. We have a number of high profile sites that URMA completely mishandles. We have added mesowest stations and blacklisted sites, which has helped some, but not well enough.  We are still trying to figure out solutions, but until one comes we are reluctant to completely replace MatchObsAll with URMA. 

As such, we still need the ObsQC program and it is crashing and stalling for us after years and years of no issues.


--
Jerry Wiedenfeld 
Information Technology Officer 
National Weather Service, Milwaukee/Sullivan, WI
work phone - 262-392-5526 x 486

--

JPC

Jeff Craven
Chief, Statistical Modeling Division (SMD)
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


-- 
Don Van Dyke
Lead Forecaster
WSR-88D, Storm Data, and Verification Focal Points
NWS Tallahassee, FL
(850) 942-8833
"You have to accomodate automation by doing more
active vigilance - you have to work harder to not
become complacent. " ~Capt. Chesley Sullenberger
--

JPC

Jeff Craven
Chief, Statistical Modeling Division (SMD)
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

--
Jeffrey Craven RTMA/URMA Discussion Group Virtual Lab Forum http://vlab.noaa.gov/web/715073/home/-/message_boards/view_message/8066283VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov

Attachments:

Attachment

Attachment