-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 24
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
Enhance TC-Gen to verify genesis probabilities from ATCF e-deck files. #1809
Comments
On 5/24/21, Dan H, Tara, and John HG met to discuss these details. Dan provided the additional followup information below: Thank you for the discussion today. I've attached some sample data that may be helpful as development continues. I looked in a few e-deck files and did not see any of the "GS" (genesis shape) entries. I'll confirm with NHC regarding whether they would like to verify the shape files. |
@kathryn Newman I want to get going on MET #1809. Reading through the details, the first thing I want to figure out is WHERE I should do this work. It could be in tc_pairs or tc_gen. |
Held a project meeting on 10/28/21 and laid out plans:
|
@halperin-erau question about the sample files you provided:
QUESTION 1:
These have GN in the 4-th column indicating genesis edeck info. But column 12 has "invest" and "genesis" instead of the "genFcst". I assume we want to only verify GN lines that have "genFcst" in the 12-th column. Checking the edeck documentation, I see the following details:
|
Hi John,
That's correct -- we only want to verify GN lines with "genFcst" in the 12th column.
Thanks,
Dan
|
…mpile it. Define ATCF offsets specific to ATCF EDECK GN lines. Update the is_match() logic slightly by moving the checking for consistent valid times from the base class to the ProbRIRWInfo class. That way we can store all probabilities for the same genesis event (across multiple lead times) in the same object.
…bRIRWInfo and ProbGenInfo objects.
So we never actually compare the predicted genesis location with actual BEST track genesis location... making sure that they're close enough to each other? Right?
Correct -- we only compare the predicted genesis location to the storm location in the a- or b-decks at the forecast genesis valid time for matching purposes.
So there's only one set of verification logic, not two, not DEV and OPS, right? If so, I'll plan to set FCST_VAR = OBS_VAR = "PROBGENESIS".
Correct -- the verification logic here is similar to the OPS method, except that instead of defining genesis_hit_window in the config file, the verification window is defined by the forecast period in the e-deck file.
|
… only need 1 PCT table, not two.
…hat the tc-gen application can modify their contents.
…rifying genesis probabilities. Still need to add a probgen_mpr line type, a unit test, and documentaiton.
Needed doc updates:
|
… time for which genesis is forecast.
… the newly-updated GENMPR line type.
…ProbGenInfo. That was kludgy.
…ched pair objects. This is cleaner than the last kludgy solution.
Describe the New Feature
tc_gen_probabilistic_algorithm_v2.pdf
Please see the attached slides to illustrate 2 main changes that are required for TC-Genesis verification. This issue describes the first of those 2 enhancements. Enhance tc_gen to verify genesis probabilities from ATCF e-deck files. NHC identifies disturbances and issues 3 probability forecasts for how likely it is that disturbance will develop into a tropical storm. The probabilities cover 3 time windows, with 48, 120, or 168 hours.
@halperin-erau has provided some sample data containing these e-deck probabilities. However, as of May 2021, their format is still under development. In the existing and historical versions of these files, both the lat,lon location and valid timestamps are absent. If any of those columns are missing from the input data, tc_gen should print a warning message and ignore that input.
This task is to enhance tc_gen to parse those e-deck probabilities and use them to populate Nx2 probabilistic contingency tables. Create 1 table for each of the time windows (48, 120, and 168) but make that a user-configurable option. Write the resulting probabilistic output.
Be sure to subset output by basin, time window, and perhaps forecaster initials. Support the application of both the development and operational logic, but note that the operational logic will be used by NHC.
Acceptance Testing
List input data types and sources.
Describe tests required for new functionality.
Time Estimate
Estimate the amount of work required here.
Issues should represent approximately 1 to 3 days of work.
Sub-Issues
Consider breaking the new feature down into sub-issues.
Relevant Deadlines
The project for 7790901 originally ended in August, 2021. After the no-cost extension, the updated date is February 28th, 2022.
Funding Source
7790901
Define the Metadata
Assignee
Labels
Projects and Milestone
Define Related Issue(s)
Consider the impact to the other METplus components.
Recommend adding a METplus use-case to demonstrate this new functionality, assuming enough data is available to do so.
New Feature Checklist
See the METplus Workflow for details.
Branch name:
feature_<Issue Number>_<Description>
Pull request:
feature <Issue Number> <Description>
Select: Reviewer(s) and Linked issues
Select: Repository level development cycle Project for the next official release
Select: Milestone as the next official version
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: