-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 67
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
18.2.1: Some model parameters do not ingest correctly #349
Comments
What happens when you try to sample the NAM/GFS vorticity field image, do values display? If values display when sampling, you could try altering the colormap through "Change Colormap" to handle the fractional values (e-5) in min/max. A permanent way to handle this would be through the styleRules or parameters.xml, but if you are using an outside EDEX server, that is something you cannot alter. I modified this to include Tiffany’s solution. Parameters.xml is a master change, where editing the style rules gives more flexibility with specific NWP. I feel like the HRRR had some crazy large vorticity values in the past compared to other NWP. |
Thank you for bringing these to our attention. We are looking into them.
|
Hello, you should be able to render Vorticity plots now. We found an issue with the units. I had to update the database table: And then for future use I updated the units from 1/s to /s in /awips2/edex/data/utility/common_static/base/parameter/definition/parameters.xml
No restarting of EDEX was necessary, just had to wait for a new model run to come in. |
Thank you, @tiffanycmeyer13! Validated that vorticity is coming in properly over Unidata's cloud EDEX. Still seeing issues loading the various thunderstorm parameters from the HRRR. Did some troubleshooting and I believe the culprit is an error with the bulk shear products. When I try to load 0-6km bulk shear from the volume browser, I get "NO DATA" across the entire domain except -- interestingly -- the sliver of Southern California you saw the Layer Supercell Composite come through. I tested this on the Unidata CentOS VM. I suspect similar issues are plaguing the RAP ingest as well. A-OK with NAM/GFS. |
Digging further, and it looks like something starts to go wacky with the wind grids as you step up in elevation. Pardon the chaotic image, but loading the wind data from the HRRR as streamlines does a nice job of showing where the data holes are. (Also notice there are no yellow streamlines indicating 6km wind.) It certainly strikes me that whatever is happening with these parameters is due to issues with the wind grids. |
Okay, I've been looking into this in more detail. NOAAPort is where we receive our HRRR data from and they limit the data that they are sending. You can see here the data NOAAPort is sending and there's nothing above 500mb which is why you aren't able to plot any winds above about 5km. |
Sorry for the very late response, @tiffanycmeyer13 :) That makes total sense w/r/t HRRR wind fields and I'm not sure why I didn't consider that before. Vorticity looks great on all models post-18.2.1-3! I'm still noticing in 18.2.1-3 that Supercell Composite Parameter and Significant Tornado Parameter, among others, are not being calculated for the RAP13 or NAM12. It is possible that this could be due to CAPE for this model specifically not being selectable by fixed height above ground (FHAG). Mixed-layer CAPE can be computed for every other available model. This worked for the RAP13 and NAM12 in 18.1.1 and versions prior. The issue is reproducible with the latest Unidata AWIPS build against the |
To report a non-security related issue, please provide:
It appears that several model fields do not ingest correctly in 18.2.1. Fields I have found with problems so far:
I've verified these issues both on the Unidata cloud EDEX and AllisonHouse's EDEX offering. I can also confirm that this does not appear to be client-specific; I have reproduced the problems on AllisonHouse's EDEX using the NWS 20.2.3 baseline build on Linux. This is not an exhaustive list of the fields with issues, but these are certainly the most noticeable.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: