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

Verification stats by station

RSS (Opens New Window)(Opens New Window)
SL
Steven Levine, modified 8 Years ago.

Verification stats by station

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

We've gotten several requests for verification stats recently and we're working on a job to generate them.  These would be observation-analysis stats going back some number of days (30 or so but that number can change), and the idea is to plot them in such a way that you can see where the biggest errors are.

Here is a sample file of what I'm working on. It's a KML file of placemarks at each METAR site, with larger dots for larger errors.  If you open the KML file, you can click on the point and it gives you the stationID and MAE and bias against both the obs and the background field.  This is for temperature for a period over the previous winter, but it could be expanded to other variables like wind speed, too.  Mesonet sites can be brought in too, if you want.

The idea is that we could generate something like this once a day and put the file on an FTP server where you could grab it.

It is worth mentioning that this would NOT be a part of the operational RTMA or URMA jobs, and would be subject to periodic outages.  This would allow us to make changes quickly if we need/want to without going through central ops.

Some of you have probably picked up by now that I like the KML format because you can then plot the files yourselves in a layer, and you have point-click features that you don't get in a static graphic.  If anyone has any other suggestions for other formats you may find more convenient or useful, please let us know.  The same goes for the format of this file.

If you like something just like this, I can start pumping these out as soon as next week.

I appreciate any feedback/suggestions you might have on this.  My thanks also to Dave Bernhardt who originally suggested these files and this format.

Steve

Attachments:

Attachment

MU
Mike Umscheid, modified 8 Years ago.

RE: Verification stats by station

Youngling Posts: 2 Join Date: 10/26/16 Recent Posts

This is great Steve!  I'm really looking forward to seeing some of the wind speed biases out on the plains. Particularly when ASOS/AWOS stations are reporting >= 18 knots sustained, because that's when RTMA/URMA wind speed low-biases really show up (as I've discussed in offline e-mail).

Mike U

JC
James Clark, modified 8 Years ago.

Re: [RTMA/URMA Evaluation/Feedback Group - RTMA/URMA Feedback Forum] Verifi

Youngling Posts: 11 Join Date: 8/13/15 Recent Posts
I really like these as well.  I have been looking at quick ways to assess sites/situations were the RTMA/URMA isn't performing well here at GJT.  This will allow us to monitor performance and handicap the BC grids when necessary.

Thanks,

JV




_________________________________________________________________________
James V. Clark III (JV)
Information Technology Officer
National Weather Service
Grand Junction, CO
970-243-7007 x486

The difference between a successful person and others is not a lack of strength, not a lack of knowledge, but rather a lack of will. -- Vince Lombardi

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 2:36 PM, RTMA Feedback Forum <RTMA.Feedback.VLab@noaa.gov> wrote:
Greetings,

We've gotten several requests for verification stats recently and we're working on a job to generate them.  These would be observation-analysis stats going back some number of days (30 or so but that number can change), and the idea is to plot them in such a way that you can see where the biggest errors are.

Here is a sample file of what I'm working on. It's a KML file of placemarks at each METAR site, with larger dots for larger errors.  If you open the KML file, you can click on the point and it gives you the stationID and MAE and bias against both the obs and the background field.  This is for temperature for a period over the previous winter, but it could be expanded to other variables like wind speed, too.  Mesonet sites can be brought in too, if you want.

The idea is that we could generate something like this once a day and put the file on an FTP server where you could grab it.

It is worth mentioning that this would NOT be a part of the operational RTMA or URMA jobs, and would be subject to periodic outages.  This would allow us to make changes quickly if we need/want to without going through central ops.

Some of you have probably picked up by now that I like the KML format because you can then plot the files yourselves in a layer, and you have point-click features that you don't get in a static graphic.  If anyone has any other suggestions for other formats you may find more convenient or useful, please let us know.  The same goes for the format of this file.

If you like something just like this, I can start pumping these out as soon as next week.

I appreciate any feedback/suggestions you might have on this.  My thanks also to Dave Bernhardt who originally suggested these files and this format.

Steve

--
Steven Levine RTMA/URMA Evaluation/Feedback Group Virtual Lab Forum http://vlab.noaa.gov/group/715073/discussions-forums-/-/message_boards/view_message/1741486 RTMA.Feedback.VLab@noaa.gov

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