WDQMS snow-depth release

WDQMS snow-depth release

بواسطة - Timo Proescholdt
عدد الردود: 7

Dear WIGOS community,

the WDQMS team is happy to announce that following the adoption of a snow-depth template at the recent ET-ODQMS meeting and WIGOS Monitoring Centers now being able to report snow-depth, the team is working on a release adding snow-depth to the NWP module in the WDQMS webtool.

There are two way in which snow-depth can be added. First, by adding a new parameter to the drop-down of variables. Second, as a separate view in the NWP module, like Marine Quality. 
Having discussed this, the team would recommend to implement snow-depth as a separate view. The reason for this is that the snow-depth map looks significantly different from the map of the other variables. Besides, it would avoid having dependencies between snow-depth and other variables in the backend, given that snow-depth will be reported as a separate file.

Do you agree implementing snow-depth as a separate view, like the Marine Quality?

The team is planning to release snow-depth in the NWP module in Q1/Q2 2025.

with kind regards,
WDQMS development team

رداً على Timo Proescholdt

Re: WDQMS snow-depth release

بواسطة - Karl Monnik
Hi Timo and friends

Thank you for engaging with us.

I understand why we have different views for land surface, upper air and marine stations; as they have quite different footprints in terms of stations. Also GCOS has its own 2 pages.

I would be a little concerned about another page for snow depth as this means a further location for RWC and national staff to check and it is more easy for it to be accidently ignored.

My preference is to find a way to combine it with land surface.

But as an Australian, I'm not going to be looking at snow depth frequently!

Have a lovely holiday season.
Karl
رداً على Timo Proescholdt

Re: WDQMS snow-depth release

بواسطة - Martina Suaya
Dear Timo, thanks for sharing this information.

I support your recommendation for a separate view, but in line of Karls concerns (too many places to look for something) I would try to think ahead and design a module for snow depth that would be suitable as well for other variables in the future (i.e precipitation).

From the RWC perspective, we're challenged on daily basis with the overall modules, categories, time aggregations and variables so smart post processing of the information is in general necessary, and RWCs have started to do this. With API in place this will be extended for sure. So the webtool, as you mention, has to show on an appropriate wayr the results and if a separate module is needed ok for me.

Thanks again, I am looking forward to the next releases! My best wisher for all

Martina
رداً على Martina Suaya

Re: WDQMS snow-depth release

بواسطة - Timo Proescholdt
Dear Karl and Martina, all,

thanks for your reactions.

My initial thought was also that snow-depth would simply be an additional variable in the drop-down in the existing view. Ultimately, the team had two reasons why we wanted to suggest a separate view. First, the snow-depth map is so different from the existing variables, to the extent that it arguably is a separate view. This is a purely visual preference. Second. The data on which the snow-depth view depends is provided by NWP centers in separate files from the existing variables. This is because the data is assimilated in a different way. This means that in theory an issue in producing the snow-depth file would also "hold up" the existing variables, because we do not make a data/time-period available unless all data is available to avoid the map appearing to be changing for a given day/period. While this is not expected to happen, it will nevertheless happen at some point. The question would then be do we accept that snow-depth can "hold up" the other variables or vice versa in rate circumstances? We think that a solution whereby the calendar / period is activated by variable, rather than by period as is the case now, would be too difficult to implement and hard to understand for a user.

Lastly, a driver seems to also be whether snow-depth (cryo) should be seen as an independent (separate view) or integrated (add to dropdown) activity.

If the team accepts a rare "hold up" and there is a preference of having the variables together in one view despite the baseline of stations being quite different, we can implement snow-depth as a new item in the dropdown, rather than a separate view.

with kind regards,
Timo
رداً على Timo Proescholdt

Re: WDQMS snow-depth release

بواسطة - Martina Suaya
Dear Timo,

I agree that the snow depth processing shouldn't hold up the update of the other variables. Probably the other way around could be accepted, that is to publish p,t,u and wind despite not having the updates of the snowdepth files.

But remember that also the calendar moves from each NWP Centres availability. If for instance we dont't have DWD since the 1 of january, looking into this center will move the calendar to this date. The same could be apply to the variables? If this can be configured I would support using the same menu considering that the snowdepth might not be updated when other variables are. And the calendar updates should follow the variables P,T.U,Wind as we see them today.

I don't think snowdepth should be indentified as "cryo" as the information come from the the same place as the other variables (bufr/synop reports), at least from the moment. While I understand the concept of cryo I don't think is relevant at this stage for the webtool.

Thanks a lot

Martina
رداً على Martina Suaya

Re: WDQMS snow-depth release

بواسطة - Karl Monnik
Hi Timo and Martina

I agree that snow depth is primarily a synoptic variable made available via BUFR. Martina's comment above I support. Unless the cryo community provide separate reports of snow depth that are not associated with existing synoptic stations.

These are some thoughts separate to the display discussion above.
So Availability will report stations that have declared Snow depth as a variable in OSCAR/Surface and a value has been reported.
Quality will be the O-B estimate for the NWP cell represented by the station. It would be useful to have one category to distinguish between non-zero snow depth and zero snow depth. From a quality monitoring perspective (this applies to rainfall as well), identifying zero reports when there is likely snow (rain) present is a key quality control activity. Null - no information vs Nil, reported as zero is most important.

Kind regards
Karl
رداً على Karl Monnik

Re: WDQMS snow-depth release

بواسطة - Tanja Kleinert

Hi Timo, et al,

I also support displaying snow depth together with the other variables. I agree that users have to be made aware of the differences associated with the production times of the NWP outputs for snow depth compared to the other variables but still the snow depth observations are provided by the same stations as air temperature, wind, air pressure and relative humidity. Hence, I´d favor an addition to the drop down menu. Furthermore, I would expect that the snow depth reporting will be added to the NRT NWP monitoring module as well as to the GBON module. Is this envisaged?

I support Martina´s and Karl´s view that snow depth is primarily a synoptic variable and shouldn´t be associated with cryosphere per se. 

Concerning the quality monitoring I agree with Karl that we should distinguish between zero cm snow depth and 'nil'.

Kind regards,

Tanja

رداً على Tanja Kleinert

Re: WDQMS snow-depth release

بواسطة - Madjid ABERKANE
Hi Tanja, Timo, and all,

I would like to add a small point for consideration, particularly for NWP centers, regarding snow-related requirements under GBON. Specifically, there is a separate BUFR template (3 07 103) that should be produced by each station reporting snow parameters. This template shares some common element descriptors such : 0 20 062, 0 02 177, and 0 13 013 with the hourly SYNOP template (3 07 096).
For further details, please refer to the Manual on Codes, Volume I.2, Part C, e/GBON 1.1.2 and 1.2.2:
https://library.wmo.int/records/item/35625-manual-on-codes-volume-i-2-international-codes.

While this may not impact current operations, I believe it will be useful information for the WDQMS team.

Kind regards,
Madjid