Hi Justin,
Thanks for the clarification … I was thinking that the climatology on which the
anomalies were calculated was not the best current source, so your email
confirmed that.
Greg, et al.: my first inclination is to create a climatology based on the
1981-2010 CFSR that uses an 11-day running mean centered on the present day …
Cheers,
Kevin
_____________________________________________
Kevin Tyle, Systems Administrator
Dept. of Atmospheric & Environmental Sciences
University at Albany
Earth Science 235, 1400 Washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12222
Email: ktyle@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ktyle@xxxxxxxxxx>
Phone: 518-442-4578
_____________________________________________
From: Justin Cooke - NOAA Federal [mailto:justin.cooke@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 4:35 PM
To: Greg Thompson
Cc: Tyle, Kevin R; conduit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [conduit] Removal of 500 and 1000 hPa height anomaly fields from
GFS
Kevin, Greg,
Several months ago a user evaluating the parallel output from the GFS had the
same concerns as you about this parameter no longer being available. We reached
out to NCEP EMC's Mark Iredell and he gave this reasoning for the parameters
removal:
"the climatology that had been used to compute geopotential height anomalies
for the GFS was very old, representing a fairly short timeframe from forty
years ago or so and had some known biases. Your approach of using reanalysis
data is a far superior solution. Reanalysis climatology would not only have
known provenance, it is higher resolution in space and longer averaging in
time."
As you can tell, his recommendation is to use reanalysis data, just like you
mentioned Greg.
Sorry for the inconvenience the removal of this parameter is causing.
Justin Cooke
NCEP Central Operations
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Greg Thompson
<gthompsn@xxxxxxxx<mailto:gthompsn@xxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Yes, this is a bit disappointing because I've had that product showing for
years also. It can always be re-created from opening some reanalysis product
that is an average, but the ease of plotting a single 2D field, which hardly
added any real volume to the files, was made it so attractive.
--Greg Thompson, NCAR-RAL
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Tyle, Kevin R
<ktyle@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ktyle@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hi everyone,
With today’s implementation of the GFS upgrades, the 500 and 1000 hPa height
anomaly grids are no longer part of the output. This was advertised in the NWS
Technical Implementation Notice, so it is not a surprise … but up till now, we
made use of these grids in our web products.
Does anyone know of another quick-and-easy online source of either anomaly or
mean grids for these two height levels? I can put something together via the
CFSR, but that will take a wee bit of time …
Cheers,
Kevin
_____________________________________________
Kevin Tyle, Systems Administrator
Dept. of Atmospheric & Environmental Sciences
University at Albany
Earth Science 235, 1400 Washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12222
Email: ktyle@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ktyle@xxxxxxxxxx>
Phone: 518-442-4578<tel:518-442-4578>
_____________________________________________
_______________________________________________
conduit mailing list
conduit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:conduit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
For list information or to unsubscribe, visit:
http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/
_______________________________________________
conduit mailing list
conduit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:conduit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
For list information or to unsubscribe, visit:
http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/
