-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9
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
Proposal for new BUFR table entries for EPS-SG : MWI, ICI, SCA, IAS 1, MWS #136
Comments
Dear @jbathegit CURRENT STATEAs reminder on MWS sequence, you made an interesting remark on the following part of the sequence :
NEW PROPOSALwe made a workaround and find a solution :
and replace the sequence then by :
ConclusionThe difference would be impact the current proposal :
Is this okay for you ? Thanks a million in advance for your help |
Dear @marijanacrepulja Current situation on MWI and ICI
For those two descriptors, you asked an interesting question :
after looking and ask scientist for it, I can tell you that the correct name should only be :
according to EUMETSAT scientists and definition :
source https://kanchiuniv.ac.in/coursematerials/satcomm.pdf Proposal :Changing the name of :
Would it be better and more clear for you ? Antoine MERLE |
Hello @antoinemerle re: "Satellite channel band width", there's already an existing Table B descriptor 0-02-154 which you can use for this, and which in fact already has the same Hz | -8 | 0 | 26 specifications. So you don't need to propose a new F-X-Y number for this. re: the proposed new 0-05-193 and 0-05-194, I have more often heard that point referred to as the "Satellite sub-point", rather than the "Sub-satellite point". However, there do appear to be ample references which use the latter term as well, so it's probably fine. re: the proposed new 0-21-192 and 0-21-193, it's not clear what you mean by "low resolution" vs. "high resolution", given that both of these use the same Numeric | 4 | 0 | 14 specifications. But either way, there's already an existing Table B descriptor 0-21-166 for "Land Fraction" with Numeric | 3 | 0 | 10, so you could just use Table C operators to modify those specifications as needed, and therefore you shouldn't need to propose any new F-X-Y numbers for this. re: the proposed new 0-07-195 and 0-07-196, I have the same question here as to what you mean by "low resolution" vs "high resolution", again given that both of these are proposed with the same specifications. And similarly, is there any way you could just use one of the existing height descriptors in Class 7 and, if needed, modify the specifications using Table C operators, rather than proposing new Table B descriptors? Or, if these are non-coordinate height values, you could also use the existing Table B descriptor 0-10-001 which has the exact same name as what you are proposing. |
Dear Jeff,
Indeed you are completely right here :
Thanks for your time ==> great to hear
According to us, it already exists some codes with "high resolution" in their name as the following code
We still need a distinction between the low vs higher resolution for the final user. I really thank you for your time and your advices. |
EDIT on IASI L1C and L1D |
EDIT 2 : Scientists ask to add the sub-centre. we added the code
|
code | name |
---|---|
3 01 005 | Originating centre/sub-centre |
Hi @jbathegit I follow your recommendations and I implemented the following changes with Simon Elliott MWS : related to the resolution problemWe won't create 4 new descriptors anymore, but only one new for from :
to :
MWS : related to the satellite channel band widthWe don't create 4 new descriptors but only one new for
to :
|
https://github.com/wmo-im/CCT/wiki/Teleconference-1-and-2.11.2022 notes:
|
EDIT : update the zip file with the definitions files Dear @amilan17 , we updated the table B with the final code (chosen by us). please tell me if this is okay for you and for the secretary. Dear @marijanacrepulja and @SibylleK, Please find attached :
Thanks for your help and time, I am at your disposal for any questions . |
Dear @antoinemerle, Thank you for providing the samples. I had a look at the zip file and can only find sample BUFR files but not corresponding Eccodes tables. As part of the validation process, all proposed BUFR descriptors, templates and code tables have to be entered into git hub branch. I understand it is a lot of work, but we need to validate samples using BUFR tables from git hub, as Anna will be merging it into the table release's final branch. Many thanks! |
Dear @marijanacrepulja , I just updated the zip file with the definitions tables ( you can find it above in previous comment, I am sorry for the mistake). As you requested, I tried to generate my products with table master V40 (and V39) , but the latest Eccodes V2.27.0 (delivery date August 23) does not allow me to create a BUFR file with any Master table version above 38 (included). When trying to create a product I got the following error:
According to Eccodes documentation : The latest time BUFR received a WMO master table version update is with the release Eccodes 2.26.0 ( source )
|
Dear @antoinemerle, Thank you for updating the zip file. To create samples with master table version 40.
For the purpose of validation, all new entries have to be in git hub branch, so any software for decoding/encoding BUFR can handle the samples provided. Hope this helps. Many thanks, |
It is always safer to set the FULL PATH of your own definitions in the environment variable |
Hi @shahramn, I fully agree with you and this is actually the case in my configuration :
The error I shared was rendered at runtime, while encoding the BUFR file, maybe when running the script, python is not picking the right one. I will investigate. Hi @marijanacrepulja
I definitely will do it today. One additional question, I can commit all the changes in the same branch ? Right ? Thanks |
Yes, having all the changes in one branch is convenient. Many thanks! |
https://github.com/wmo-im/CCT/wiki/Teleconference-21.11.2022 notes: |
@antoinemerle -- looks good so far. |
@antoinemerle -- can you add acronyms to this CSV? acronyms.csv |
1 similar comment
@antoinemerle -- can you add acronyms to this CSV? acronyms.csv |
Dear @amilan17 what acronyms ? ( Can you give me an example just for me to know.) Dear @marijanacrepulja @SibylleK :
Please let me know if I missed something Thank you all for your time and dedication. Antoine |
I have no further comments or concerns - thanks! |
@antoinemerle acronyms like: MWI, ICI, SCA, IAS 1, MWS... |
Dear @antoinemerle, |
Dear @SibylleK , It is done. : @efucile I assume we need once more to generate the corresponding |
@antoinemerle - thank you for updating the branch. The XML and TXT files are generated automatically and Enrico's handle is just part of the script for legacy reasons. |
Dear @SibylleK thanks for the feedback. Please find the correct files attached : I fixed the issue, It was due to a wrong copy/past (I missed the last 23 lines). thanks a lot for spotting that issue. |
Some editorial updates are in this PR: #141 |
https://github.com/wmo-im/CCT/wiki/Teleconference-10.01.2023 notes: after PR approval @amilan17 will merge PR, @marijanacrepulja still reviewing content, @SibylleK will review branch and can put output from examples in the SharePoint, @antoinemerle can post the NetCDF in the SharePoint and compare output to the NetCDF. Teams SharePoint directory: https://wmoomm.sharepoint.com/:f:/s/wmocpdb/EnqK9Y2bfGxPnXNM_yrOq5gBJrfprspEPKpXr7YVIivSbQ?e=lvTWvU (post to 'documentation' folder) |
Hi @amilan17
MERLE : For that case the code table are a bit different and our new one is more accurate one (according to me)
MERLE : Almost identical but not identical, Those are still different instruments with different meanings.
MERLE : 15 means missing which means also cancel. I mean this is the way we did it the past (I can confirm this info with Simon)
MERLE : It was a typo, I already corrected after your message
MERLE : for that particular comment, I did not understand it |
Thank you for your thorough feedback. The FXY sequences that begin with 201, 202 and 207 have predefined element names. The requested change is purely editorial, makes the text consistent and doesn't change the meaning. Below is a table with some detailed examples with the crossed out text replaced by the following line. You can also do a simple filter on the tables in the GitHub browser wiindow to see how these types of fields are written for other BUFR sequences. I hope this makes more sense, but I'm happy to explain more on Teams if you would like.
|
Dear @amilan17 , as promised : Here are the new product for MWS and SCA in tinier part. PS : I tried to upload but it did not work with all the files so please at the moment find : PS 2 : I updated the text for the cancel description : 3c113e2 |
as requested in comment : #136 (comment) update the for the ElementName_en and ElementDescription_en for : - width and scale cancel
@marijanacrepulja @SibylleK Will you be able to validate the sample data before Friday? Thanks! |
The provided BUFR examples could be read by the DWD BUFR software. I can't find the netCDFs. For comparison and check of the output some other outputs are needed. Regarding some values of Flag tables, the encoding seems to be not correct, as the last bit is often set, which should not be. |
@SibylleK @antoinemerle I made some editorial changes to element names and descriptions. Can you please double check that I didn't lose/change any meanings? (see just commit above) |
Greetings @amilan17 and @SibylleK , Regarding amilan17's commit : Regarding the test data:
Please confirm that you have received and have access to all necessary files. If there are any issues or missing documents, please let me know. Thanks for your support , let me know if you need anything else |
@amilan17 @antoinemerle @SibylleK I was able to decode all BUFR examples, and when I compared the results to those provided by Sibylle, the values were identical. |
@marijanacrepulja Thank you. |
@marijanacrepulja Thanks a million for this last review. Also : @amilan17 , @SibylleK and @marijanacrepulja |
…ntries-for-eps-sg-mwi-ici-sca-ias-1-mws #136 merge into FT branch
@antoinemerle Can you please update this branch with the edit needed? When ready please open a PR to merge this branch into FT2023-1 branch. |
Last week our colleagues at ECMWF were kind enough to point out that during the preparation of our many inputs to the current Fast Track (FT 2023-I), we have inadvertently introduced the wrong replication factors in the proposed Table D sequence for MWI, 3-10-081. The _correct_ fixed replication factor for the number of horns is 8. This is correct in the “Element name” column, but _wrong_ in the “Table references” column, where we refer to 7 horns. The entry in the sequence should say 1 13 008, Repeat 13 descriptors 8 times The _correct_ fixed replication factors for the channel blocks are: 2, 2, 2, 8, 2, 4, 1, 5. This gives 26 channels. We have passed you the following _wrong_ fixed replication factors: 1, 2, 3, 3, 2, 3, 3, 2. This would give 19 channels. Changes are embedded with this commit (related to the following : #136) Thanks
@amilan17 @SimonElliottEUM @antoinemerle In the BUFR Template 310082 there is a difference between a branch and a proposal related to replications Proposal 0 33 109 | MWS overall quality flags | Git branch @SimonElliottEUM @antoinemerle Could you please confirm which of the entries is correct? Many thanks |
Hi @marijanacrepulja , The correct one is well the git branch. I should have updated the proposal when we changed the git branch, I will update the proposal according to what we pushed. So it is completely correct is as it is in the
a bit of detailsThe very first initial proposal for MWS on this particular part of the sequence was
But during the :
we made some changes to this part and we moved to the following sequence :
the following was an intermediate state : 0 33 109 | MWS overall quality flags | |
Initial request
This document proposes new BUFR entries for the following products : MWI, ICI, SCA, IAS 1, MWS. This entries correspond to the instruments embeded for EPS-SG mission
Amendment details
New table D entries
3 10 080
3 10 081
3 10 082
3 10 083
3 10 084
3 10 085
3 10 086
ICI
Add the following sequence to BUFR TABLE D :
Add the following sequence `3 10 080 "Ice Cloud Imager Data (level 1B)" :
MWI
Add the following sequence `3 10 081" Microwave Imager Data (level 1B)" :
MWS
Add the following sequence
3 10 082
" Microwave Sounder Data (level 1B)" to BUFR Table D:SCA SZF
Add the following sequence
3 10 083
"Metop-SG Scatterometer (SCA), Sigma zero full resolution level 1B (SZF)" to BUFR Table DSCA SZR
For
3 10 084
: Metop-SG Scatterometer (SCA), Sigma zero resampled level 1B (SZR) :IASI-NG L1C RAD
Add the following sequence
3 10 085
"IASI-NG L1C (Radiances)" to BUFR Table D :IASI-NG L1D PCS
Add the following sequence
3 10 086
"IASI-NG L1D (Principle Component Scores)" to BUFR Table D :New entries in Table B :
Add the following elements to BUFR Table B :
New entries in existing code and flag table
New flag tables and related code
Comments
No response
Requestor(s)
EUMETSAT :
Simon Elliott
Antoine MERLE
Stakeholder(s)
ECMWF
WMO
ECCODES
Publication(s)
New entries in : Table B
New entries in : Table D
New entries in : Flag Table
New entries to existing flag table
Expected impact of change
MEDIUM
Collaborators
EUMETSAT scientists
References
No response
Validation
No response
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: