Re: wmstnm improvements

Thank you Mr. Clare!

Will this be included in the upcoming version (5.2.0)?

Regards,
Bolli

On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 09:02:40PM -0700, Fred Clare wrote:
> Bolli,
>
> I have added an option "VVC", settable by wmsetp, that will effect
> plotting the raw SYNOP codes in station model plots. Do
>
> wmsetp("VVC",1)
>
> if you want to do this.
>
> Fred Clare
>
>
>
> On Dec 15, 2009, at 1:33 PM, Bolli Palmason wrote:
>
> >
> >Thank you Mr. Clare for your response.
> >
> >In the WMO Guide on the Global Data-processing System:
> >
> >http://www.wmo.ch/pages/prog/www/DPS/Manual/WMO485.pdf
> >
> >In Volume I, Part II, Appendix II-4: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF DATA,
> >ANALYSES AND FORECASTS (pages 49-63) is a detailed description of the
> >surface plotting model (the SYNOP symbol) and there it reads on
> >page 50:
> >
> >VV - Horizontal visibility at surface, the code figures are plotted.
> >
> >I can also point you to this German guide:
> >
> >http://www.4robert.de/synop/synop.html
> >
> >Norwegian weather page pointing to this guide:
> >
> >http://www.mir-co.net/wetter/wetterkartensymbole.htm
> >
> >We are also using other plotting packages and all of them plot the
> >visibility as it is in the SYNOP code. I would think that since you
> >are
> >including the option of using the metric system (UNT 1) for your
> >customers outside of the US, it would be better to follow the
> >standard.
> >
> >Regarding the rain/snow dot size: it is not a showstopper, I'm
> >plotting
> >postscript and then converting to png for the web. I had to increase
> >the
> >size of the images to 1600x1200 points for the symbols to be easily
> >distinguishable. You will maybe keep this in mind if later on symbols
> >will be redigitized.
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Bolli
> >
> >
> >On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 01:09:01AM -0700, Fred Clare wrote:
> >>
> >>On Dec 13, 2009, at 6:26 AM, Bolli Palmason wrote:
> >>
> >>>Dear NCL users,
> >>>
> >>>thanks to NCAR for a very nice graphics package!
> >>
> >>Thanks for the comment.
> >>>
> >>>I'm using the wmstnm function to plot SYNOP data and there are two
> >>>things that could improve (I'm using UNT 1 - metric):
> >>>
> >>>1. The visibility should be the numbers from the SYNOP code, not
> >>>translated to km. 70 in SYNOP code should be plotted as 70, not 20
> >>>(km).
> >>
> >>In implementing wmstmn I encoded the data as per the SYNOP Data
> >>Format
> >>(FM-12) as described at:
> >>
> >>http://weather.unisys.com/wxp/Appendices/Formats/SYNOP.html
> >>
> >>which indicates visibility is encoded in km. What source for SYNOP
> >>codes are you using? Since wmstnm has been in our package for over
> >>fifteen years with the visibilities coded in km and yours is the
> >>first
> >>suggestion to code as per another scale, I am hesitant to change the
> >>code at this time. I could define a user-settable parameter that
> >>would control how visibility is encoded. In the meantime, you could
> >>define a function that converts km to the SYNOP codes you want to
> >>use--
> >>this would not be precise, but it would be close.
> >>>
> >>>2. The dots/stars for rain/snow should be bigger or different
> >>>size, it
> >>>is hard to see the difference.
> >>
> >>I can see that at small sizes there could be difficulty in
> >>distinguishing these symbols. These symbols were digitized from
> >>scaled
> >>up symbols that appear in NOAA's publication "Explanation of the
> >>Weather Map." Are the dots/stars for rain/snow the only ones you
> >>find
> >>that are causing confusion? Again, I am hesitant to redigitize those
> >>as to make them inconsistent with the sizes of dots and stars used
> >>elsewhere, and redigitizing all of the dots and stars would be a bit
> >>of bother. Also, the spacings would have to be readjusted. What
> >>sizes do you normally plot these symbols at and what is your output
> >>device? Plotting the symbols to a Postscript file and printing seems
> >>to resolve the symbols fairly well for me. All of these characters
> >>are drawn as lines and filled areas and not as raster images scaled
> >>for device-specific resolutions; that could definitely cause
> >>confusion
> >>on lower-resolution output devices.
> >>>
> >>>Hope NCAR considers these changes, must be bothering others also :)
> >>
> >>You are the first to bring these issues up, but I can see your point
> >>and will file this for future reference.
> >>
> >>Thanks for your input.
> >>
> >>Fred Clare
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>Best regards,
> >>>Bolli
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>ncl-talk mailing list
> >>>List instructions, subscriber options, unsubscribe:
> >>>http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/ncl-talk
> >>
> >
> >--
> >Bolli Palmason
> >IT Department
> >Icelandic Meteorological Office
> >Tel. +354 5226103
> >_______________________________________________
> >ncl-talk mailing list
> >List instructions, subscriber options, unsubscribe:
> >http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/ncl-talk
>

-- 
Bolli Palmason
IT Department
Icelandic Meteorological Office
Tel. +354 5226103
_______________________________________________
ncl-talk mailing list
List instructions, subscriber options, unsubscribe:
http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/ncl-talk