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

ATCF fields are incorrect lengths when written to file #24

Closed
ghost opened this issue Mar 17, 2022 · 4 comments · Fixed by #29
Closed

ATCF fields are incorrect lengths when written to file #24

ghost opened this issue Mar 17, 2022 · 4 comments · Fixed by #29
Labels
bug Something isn't working

Comments

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Mar 17, 2022

@WPringle caught the following issue in noaa-ocs-modeling/EnsemblePerturbation#74 (comment):

@zacharyburnettNOAA I'm noticing some changes in the column spacings and the forecast times are not being entered in correctly. The fort.22 columns need to be formatted exactly.

NEW: AL, 06, 2018091106, , BEST, 0,260N, 632W, 115
OLD: AL, 06, 2018091106, , BEST, 0, 260N, 632W, 115

ATCF specification:
https://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/atcf_web/docs/database/new/abrdeck.html

ATCF example file:
https://ftp.nhc.noaa.gov/atcf/btk/bal012021.dat

fort.22 specification for NWS 19:
https://wiki.adcirc.org/wiki/Fort.22_file#NWS_.3D_19_Dynamic_Asymmetric_Holland_Vortex_Model

for NWS 19 and 20, the column lengths should be the following:

column ATCF fort.22
BASIN 2 2
CY 3 3
YYYYMMDDHH 11 11
TECHNUM/MIN 3 3
TECH 5 5
TAU 4 4
LatN/S 5 -> 4 <-
LonE/W 6 -> 5 <-
VMAX 4 4
MSLP 5 5
TY 3 3
RAD 4 4
WINDCODE 4 4
RAD1 5 5
RAD2 5 5
RAD3 5 5
RAD4 5 5
RADP 5 5
RRP 5 5
MRD 4 4
GUSTS 4 -> 5 <-
EYE 4 4
SUBREGION 4 4
MAXSEAS 4 4
INITIALS 4 4
DIR 4 -> 3 <-
SPEED 4 4
STORMNAME 11 -> 12 <-
DEPTH 2 N/A
SEAS 3 N/A
SEASCODE 4 N/A
SEAS1 5 N/A
SEAS2 5 N/A
SEAS3 5 N/A
SEAS4 5 N/A
RECORD_NUMBER N/A 4
@ghost ghost added the bug Something isn't working label Mar 17, 2022
@ghost ghost self-assigned this Mar 17, 2022
@ghost ghost moved this to Todo in observational data retrieval Mar 17, 2022
@WPringle
Copy link
Contributor

WPringle commented Mar 17, 2022 via email

@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Mar 17, 2022

ok, so for reference the conversion from ATCF to fort.22 looks like this:

-AL, 06, 2018090200,   , BEST,   0, 159N,  296W,  45, 1000, TS,  34, NEQ,   40,   40,   20,   40, 1010,  150,  30,  55,   0,   L,   0,    ,   0,   0,   FLORENCE, M, 12, NEQ,   45,    0,    0,   60, genesis-num, 019,
+AL, 06, 2018090200,   , BEST,   0,159N, 296W,   45, 1000, TS,  34, NEQ,   40,   40,   20,   40, 1010,  150,  30,   55,   0,   L,   0,    ,  0,   0,  FLORENCE  ,  12

@WPringle
Copy link
Contributor

WPringle commented Mar 17, 2022 via email

@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Mar 17, 2022

Apart from the column spacings I think that’s good yep

what are the correct column spacings for the fort.22? I've not had much success finding that on the ADCIRC wiki, as it says "use the ATCF format" but the fort.22 files we have been using have slightly different column widths than ATCF

@ghost ghost linked a pull request Mar 28, 2022 that will close this issue
ghost pushed a commit that referenced this issue Mar 29, 2022
ghost pushed a commit that referenced this issue Mar 29, 2022
@ghost ghost closed this as completed in #29 Mar 29, 2022
ghost pushed a commit that referenced this issue Mar 29, 2022
* use Florence 2018 as test case

* set ATCF field lengths based on #24

* update reference files

* add test for ATCF

Co-authored-by: zacharyburnett <[email protected]>
Repository owner moved this from Todo to Done in observational data retrieval Mar 29, 2022
This issue was closed.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Projects
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant