Skip to content
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

make --closedcontourcmd resolution specific #824

Draft
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

chengzhuzhang
Copy link
Contributor

@chengzhuzhang chengzhuzhang commented Jul 19, 2024

Description

TC detection threshold should be model data resolution depended, currently the pre-processing script is using a threshold for ne120, resulted small number of detected TC events in ne30 simulations. Now update to add resolution specific thresholds.
Note: this fix should bring into cdat migration branch, and zppy implementation.

The original closed contour criteria (--closedcontourcmd "PSL,300.0,4.0,0;_AVG(T200,T500),-0.6,4,0.30"):
requiring an increase in PSL of at least 300 Pa (3 hPa) within 4 Degree of the candidate node,
and a decrease in 200 and 500 hPa average air temperature of 0.6 K within 4 Degree of the node within 0.3 degree of the candidate with maximum air temperature.

Checklist

  • My code follows the style guidelines of this project
  • I have performed a self-review of my own code
  • My changes generate no new warnings
  • Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules

If applicable:

  • New and existing unit tests pass with my changes (locally and CI/CD build)
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
  • I have noted that this is a breaking change for a major release (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)

@chengzhuzhang
Copy link
Contributor Author

chengzhuzhang commented Jul 23, 2024

With --closedcontourcmd "PSL,300.0,4.0,0;_AVG(T200,T500),-0.6,4,0.30" change into --closedcontourcmd "PSL,300.0,4.0,0;_AVG(T200,T500),-0.6,4,1.0", both threshold somehow created same results.
image

Changing --closedcontourcmd "PSL,300.0,4.0,0;_AVG(T200,T500),-0.6,4,1.0"
to --closedcontourcmd "PSL,300.0,4.0,0;_AVG(T200,T500),-0.6,4,1.2", slightly modified the distribution.
image

@chengzhuzhang
Copy link
Contributor Author

Below is a comparison between v3.LR and the base line simulation (v2ish)
image
With threshold 1.0 only 5 events are detected in 15 years of data LR v3.historical (2000-2014). Results are similar with threshold 0.3.

With the investigation so far, it is determined that:

  • At LR, the detection is largely insensitive to the threshold change.
  • With same threshold, v3.LR detected much less storms than in v2ish simulation with this algorithm.
  • We should test when v3.HR data made available.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant