On December 4th, an invitation was sent regarding a CONDUIT meeting that will take place in New Orleans at the following time and place:
January 23
2-4 p.m.
Bridge Room, Hilton New Orleans Riverside Hotel
We now have some additional information for you to consider prior to the meeting. Again, we ask that you send any comments or specific questions on issues you'd like to see raised during the meeting. Previous comments have been noted and will be raised during the General Discussion item during the meeting (if not addressed during the course of the meeting).
Items that have been identified for the meeting are:
- Review and discussion of previous issues from the last CONDUIT meeting held 31 January 2006
in
Atlanta see: http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/data/conduit/c2summary_060131.html
- GRIB1 to GRIB2 transition
- The transition of CONDUIT products from GRIB1 to GRIB2 is complete, except
ICWF grids. Is there a need for ICWF grids?
- Duplication of grids
- GFS is currently sent in both 1.0 degree and 0.5 degree resolution data sets for forecast hours
F000 through F180. These data sets are 16 MB and 49 MB per forecast hour file respectively.
If the duplicate 1.0 degree data were dropped, it would save approximately 1GB of bandwidth
per run (4x per day). Can 1.0 degree data be dropped?
- No additional TIGGE parameters are scheduled at this time.
- Climate Forecast System (CFS)
- Will the community use the data?
- Should we replace the 20km RUC grids with 13km RUC?
- pgrb pressure grid files increase from
9MB to 18MB, creating a doubling of RUC volume every hour
- Performance requirements
- How much data can the community handle via CONDUIT? Please come prepared with real
numbers to share.
- Data volume on CONDUIT peaked at 70GB per day without problems to top
level sites. Since GRIB1 data has been replaced with GRIB2 data, the
volume has been lowered to 45 GB per day.
- General Discussion
- Note:
- A request to NCEP to add NAM 32km grids (grid 221)
- Do we still need NAM 104 grid (90km Polar Stereographic grids)
- Is there a better higher resolution data set we should pursue?
Thanks to those of you who responded to the December 4th email. To those of you who have not responded and plan to attend the meeting, it would be helpful for us to know who you are. If you have issues to be included in the discussion, please send via email.
See you on the 23rd!
