Point Stat: MET/11.1.0 and METplus/5.1.0 could not find matched pairs (Python Embedding for Point Observations)

[pratiman-91]

Hi,
I am running PointStat analysis using MET/METplus. I am using PYTHON_XARRAY to read forecast files (UM files) and PYTHON_NUMPY to read point observations. I got zero matched pairs, if there are multiple valid time (extra +/- 24 hours). However, when I provide with exact valid time it works.

Is this behavior expected?

Working with exact valid time

DEBUG 2: Processing t2/Surface versus dbt/L0, for observation type ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method BILIN(4), using 7 matched pairs.
DEBUG 3: Number of matched pairs   = 7
DEBUG 3: Observations processed    = 7
DEBUG 3: Rejected: station id      = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: obs var name    = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: valid time      = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad obs value   = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: off the grid    = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: topography      = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: level mismatch  = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: quality marker  = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: message type    = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: masking region  = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad fcst value  = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad climo mean  = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: bad climo stdev = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: mpr filter      = 0
DEBUG 3: Rejected: duplicates      = 0
DEBUG 2: Computing Categorical Statistics.
DEBUG 2: Computing Scalar Partial Sums and Continuous Statistics.

Not working with multiple valid times

DEBUG 2: Processing t2/Surface versus dbt/L0, for observation type ADPSFC, over region FULL, for interpolation method BILIN(4), using 0 matched pairs.
DEBUG 2: Number of matched pairs   = 0
DEBUG 2: Observations processed    = 549
DEBUG 2: Rejected: station id      = 0
DEBUG 2: Rejected: obs var name    = 0
DEBUG 2: Rejected: valid time      = 549
DEBUG 2: Rejected: bad obs value   = 0
DEBUG 2: Rejected: off the grid    = 0
DEBUG 2: Rejected: topography      = 0
DEBUG 2: Rejected: level mismatch  = 0
DEBUG 2: Rejected: quality marker  = 0
DEBUG 2: Rejected: message type    = 0
DEBUG 2: Rejected: masking region  = 0
DEBUG 2: Rejected: bad fcst value  = 0
DEBUG 2: Rejected: bad climo mean  = 0
DEBUG 2: Rejected: bad climo stdev = 0
DEBUG 2: Rejected: mpr filter      = 0
DEBUG 2: Rejected: duplicates      = 0

Please let me know if you need more details.
Thanks!

[DanielAdriaansen]

Greetings @pratiman-91!

From the log output that you shared, I am able to determine that for one run you get 7 matched pairs, which you say is from using the "exact valid time". Then, for another run, you get 549 rejections due to valid time, when you use a valid time window.

I am slightly confused why there are not 549-7 (542 rejections for valid time) in the first case (using exact valid time).

I think in order to best assist you, we'd need some more information such as:

1. Your METplus wrappers configuration file
2. Information about the point observations you are passing to PointStat from Python. Ideally this would be your Python script and sample data that your Python script reads, but it could also be output from a print statement in your Python script showing what the data looks like.
3. Information about the forecast data you are passing to PointStat from Python. At a minimum, the attrs that you are setting in your Python script, but ideally the Python script and a sample data that Python can read.
4. Your complete log file from running METplus Wrappers

Any of those additional items you can provide will greatly assist us. Thanks!

[DanielAdriaansen]

I will also note that there was a bug in MET-11.1.0 with Python embedding for point observations for the valid_time. It was fixed and has been patched in a bugfix release of MET-11.1.1. I can't say for sure that this bug is affecting your run, but since you are using the capability that the bug affected (Python embedding for point observations), I would strongly recommend upgrading to MET-11.1.1+ before continuing, and trying that to see if it resolves the issue you describe.

More details about the fix and bug can be found here:
dtcenter/MET#2899

[pratiman-91]

Thank you for the reply. I will check with the newer version and get back to you. From the bug thread, it seems like I am facing the same problem.

Update: It is working with MET-11.1.1. Thanks for the support!

[pratiman-91]

Hi @DanielAdriaansen,
It is working with MET-11.1.1. Thanks for the support!