Add wrf version #127

matthiasdemuzere · 2024-03-12T14:05:29Z

I get a lof of questions on the LCZ labels, and related errors because of using a specific WRF version.
See example here: #122

So I worked towards a more structural solution, where the user is required to provide the wrf version as an argument.

Based on this argument, the required parameters are set using this dict:

    wrf_versions_dict = {
        'v4.3': {'ADD_LCZ_INT': 30, 'NUM_LAND_CAT': 41},
        'v4.3.1': {'ADD_LCZ_INT': 30, 'NUM_LAND_CAT': 41},
        'v4.3.2': {'ADD_LCZ_INT': 30, 'NUM_LAND_CAT': 41},
        'v4.3.3': {'ADD_LCZ_INT': 30, 'NUM_LAND_CAT': 41},
        'v4.4': {'ADD_LCZ_INT': 30, 'NUM_LAND_CAT': 41},
        'v4.4.1': {'ADD_LCZ_INT': 30, 'NUM_LAND_CAT': 41},
        'v4.4.2': {'ADD_LCZ_INT': 50, 'NUM_LAND_CAT': 61},
        'v4.5': {'ADD_LCZ_INT': 50, 'NUM_LAND_CAT': 61},
        'v4.5.1': {'ADD_LCZ_INT': 50, 'NUM_LAND_CAT': 61},
        'v4.5.2': {'ADD_LCZ_INT': 50, 'NUM_LAND_CAT': 61}
    }

I tested the code locally, from a W2W perspective using the sample data.
As far as I can see it seems to work.

@jkittner and @andreazonato: could you have a look?

Also:

@jkittner: could you check if the tests still work?
@andreazonato: perhaps you can check whether the produced outputs actually work in relevant versions? If this is considered needed?

jkittner · 2024-03-12T18:29:32Z

setup.cfg

@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ classifiers =
 [options]
 packages = find:
 install_requires =
+    bottleneck>=1.3.4


why do we need this? I don't think we're using that anywhere?

pandas was complaining that this version of bottleneck was required. Hence this addition.

Mhm, this seems to be only an optional dependency from pandas:
https://github.com/pandas-dev/pandas/blob/f5d754d4fcaefff9ff08167a55426f3afe88b175/pyproject.toml#L67

did you try this in a clean environment? I works fine for me without it...

Ha, yes, you are right ... this can indeed be removed then!

tests/w2w_test.py

jkittner · 2024-03-12T18:30:41Z

w2w/w2w.py

+# WRF version dict
+WRF_VERSIONS_DICT = {
+    'v4.3': {'ADD_LCZ_INT': 30, 'NUM_LAND_CAT': 41},
+    'v4.3.1': {'ADD_LCZ_INT': 30, 'NUM_LAND_CAT': 41},
+    'v4.3.2': {'ADD_LCZ_INT': 30, 'NUM_LAND_CAT': 41},
+    'v4.3.3': {'ADD_LCZ_INT': 30, 'NUM_LAND_CAT': 41},
+    'v4.4': {'ADD_LCZ_INT': 30, 'NUM_LAND_CAT': 41},
+    'v4.4.1': {'ADD_LCZ_INT': 30, 'NUM_LAND_CAT': 41},
+    'v4.4.2': {'ADD_LCZ_INT': 50, 'NUM_LAND_CAT': 61},
+    'v4.5': {'ADD_LCZ_INT': 50, 'NUM_LAND_CAT': 61},
+    'v4.5.1': {'ADD_LCZ_INT': 50, 'NUM_LAND_CAT': 61},
+    'v4.5.2': {'ADD_LCZ_INT': 50, 'NUM_LAND_CAT': 61},
+}
+
+


let's have the dict in a single location and add new versions only here. This automatically populates the argument validation.

I missed this comment/question. What do you mean by this? You want to have this in a separate file? Or ...?
It is probably not a bad idea, since this dict probably needs updates whenever a new WRF version is released.
Even though the next WRF release will have W2W integrated into the WPS/WRF system itself ...

Nah, just as a module-level constant as it currently is so in one place only. This way, changing things in that dict will automatically change e.g. the help texts, the valid choices etc.
This comment was basically just me explaining why I moved that.

w2w/w2w.py

andreazonato · 2024-03-12T19:30:32Z

Yes! Defininetely makes sense. Thanks @matthiasdemuzere !

I'l try it tomorrow

matthiasdemuzere · 2024-03-13T07:16:31Z

Thanks for reviewing @jkittner. I see now that all tests pass. That is great.
I have now also updated the README file to reflect the wrf version as a required argument.

jkittner · 2024-03-13T10:19:08Z

I have now also updated the README file to reflect the wrf version as a required argument.

oh of course - I always forget about docs 🤣

dargueso · 2024-03-15T11:14:56Z

Also tested locally on my end with my custom data and v4.5.2, it works fine as well. Outputs look correct.

dargueso · 2024-03-15T11:22:17Z

Hmmm the truth is that the new version doesn't calculate the NoUrban well, my guess is that it is looking for the previous categories. I'll need to fix that. It probably broke in previous versions, not this PR. I'll look at it.

andreazonato · 2024-03-15T17:54:38Z

Hmmm the truth is that the new version doesn't calculate the NoUrban well, my guess is that it is looking for the previous categories. I'll need to fix that. It probably broke in previous versions, not this PR. I'll look at it.

Mmmm, what is the LU_INDEX you are having in this file?

dargueso · 2024-03-15T18:35:01Z

Mmmm, what is the LU_INDEX you are having in this file?

So the attribute ISURBAN still 13 despite the fact that urban areas are actually categories 50-60. This means that the code looks for LU_INDEX that matches ISURBAN and replace them, but there are none and the urban areas are still there with there original category in the range 50-60. I've got this fixed now and will commit to this PR once I've tested it.

However, the resulting file does not work with my setup in which I have 3 domains, a larger one and then 2 identical domains, except for the urban areas. The file with LCZ_params doesn't work either and it looks like its related to GREENFRAC

dargueso · 2024-03-15T19:46:20Z

I've also fixed the issue with the GREENFRAC. The problem was that the urban areas were also identified with ISURBAN to replace GREENFRAC. Now it will check the number of categories and select urban areas including LCZ categories too.

matthiasdemuzere · 2024-03-18T13:53:33Z

Hi @dargueso, thanks for your feedback on this.

Thus far I did not consider the fact that users might feed W2W a geo_em file that already contains LCZ labels, numbered from 50-61, and derived from the MODIS-CGLC-LCZ dataset.

This makes things even more confusing.

What I'd like to suggest:

When launching W2W, it checks for the existence of LCZ labels 50..61
if yes, relabel these pixels to 13 => continue the tool (removing urban, adding LCZs, adding parameters, ...)
if no, continue the tool (removing urban, adding LCZs, adding parameters, ...)

This starts to become a bit of a circular behaviour, but at the moment I do not see another solution?
I briefly checked this with @andreazonato as wel, and he also thinks this is fine.

So, I can try to add this, and then hopefully you can test again (with a WRF version that understand labels 30..41 and labels 50..61)?

M.

dargueso · 2024-03-18T13:57:35Z

I’ve done that already, it does something similar to what you suggest, except that those changes are implemented only where the code checks ISURBAN. I can add the changes to your pull request, or create a new pull request, but I’m inheriting your pull request anyway because I built on it. On 18 Mar 2024, at 14:53, Matthias Demuzere ***@***.***> wrote: Hi @dargueso<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/dargueso__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!SfYJ9mqClESjywhHvYKXq8q8HEOybxxNa10Lpy_YiYvG4Pcy3dj_mu3j-JbIuXgHSVfZ-efxEA8_rxy1P4stAuLJ$>, thanks for your feedback on this. Thus far I did not consider the fact that users might feed W2W a geo_em file that already contains LCZ labels, numbered from 50-61, and derived from the MODIS-CGLC-LCZ dataset. This makes things even more confusing. What I'd like to suggest: * When launching W2W, it checks for the existence of LCZ labels 50..61 * if yes, relabel these pixels to 13 => continue the tool (removing urban, adding LCZs, adding parameters, ...) * if no, continue the tool (removing urban, adding LCZs, adding parameters, ...) This starts to become a bit of a circular behaviour, but at the moment I do not see another solution? I briefly checked this with @andreazonato<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/andreazonato__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!SfYJ9mqClESjywhHvYKXq8q8HEOybxxNa10Lpy_YiYvG4Pcy3dj_mu3j-JbIuXgHSVfZ-efxEA8_rxy1PwSAnm5n$> as wel, and he also thinks this is fine. So, I can try to add this, and then hopefully you can test again (with a WRF version that understand labels 30..41 and labels 50..61)? M. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/matthiasdemuzere/w2w/pull/127*issuecomment-2003979333__;Iw!!D9dNQwwGXtA!SfYJ9mqClESjywhHvYKXq8q8HEOybxxNa10Lpy_YiYvG4Pcy3dj_mu3j-JbIuXgHSVfZ-efxEA8_rxy1P1ThzG_c$>, or unsubscribe<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABAA5Y6OXHB2ONLSMEWLWALYY3WXHAVCNFSM6AAAAABESJ2WD6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDAMBTHE3TSMZTGM__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!SfYJ9mqClESjywhHvYKXq8q8HEOybxxNa10Lpy_YiYvG4Pcy3dj_mu3j-JbIuXgHSVfZ-efxEA8_rxy1P0mb9z_8$>. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

matthiasdemuzere · 2024-03-18T14:22:11Z

I’ve done that already, it does something similar to what you suggest, except that those changes are implemented only where the code checks ISURBAN.

I see. And is ISURBAN == True the same as LU_INDEX isin [50...61]?
Note that I am not sure what ISURBAN does? Is it used elsewhere in WRF? The reason I am asking is that I don't think W2W changes this layer, after implementing the new LCZ-based extent?

If your code does more or less what I suggested, then feel free to add it to this branch. Then I can have a look! Thanks!

dargueso · 2024-03-18T14:32:26Z

ISURBAN is an attribute of the netCDF file and it is a number (13) not a boolean. So if you check which grid points meet ISURBAN, in the new files with CGLC-MODIS, it will be none. I will add my changes to the branch. On 18 Mar 2024, at 15:22, Matthias Demuzere ***@***.***> wrote: I’ve done that already, it does something similar to what you suggest, except that those changes are implemented only where the code checks ISURBAN. I see. And is ISURBAN == True the same as LU_INDEX isin [50...61]? Note that I am not sure what ISURBAN does? Is it used elsewhere in WRF? The reason I am asking is that I don't think W2W changes this layer, after implementing the new LCZ-based extent? If your code does more or less what I suggested, then feel free to add it to this branch. Then I can have a look! Thanks! — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/matthiasdemuzere/w2w/pull/127*issuecomment-2004054014__;Iw!!D9dNQwwGXtA!RTkum9YXmFWLue_g8e6pPytoF6s2jqDVPdIqSSBMAgY9clhqc6AXOnHejVJ-mqczdMGBUc7K0DH_D0PPamYBRYWK$>, or unsubscribe<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABAA5Y3KZG5K4HEJZ5LCCXDYY32CVAVCNFSM6AAAAABESJ2WD6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDAMBUGA2TIMBRGQ__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!RTkum9YXmFWLue_g8e6pPytoF6s2jqDVPdIqSSBMAgY9clhqc6AXOnHejVJ-mqczdMGBUc7K0DH_D0PPalit7x7R$>. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

matthiasdemuzere · 2024-03-18T14:48:18Z

ISURBAN is an attribute of the netCDF file and it is a number (13) not a boolean. So if you check which grid points meet ISURBAN, in the new files with CGLC-MODIS, it will be none. I will add my changes to the branch. On 18 Mar 2024, at 15:22, Matthias Demuzere @.> wrote: I’ve done that already, it does something similar to what you suggest, except that those changes are implemented only where the code checks ISURBAN. I see. And is ISURBAN == True the same as LU_INDEX isin [50...61]? Note that I am not sure what ISURBAN does? Is it used elsewhere in WRF? The reason I am asking is that I don't think W2W changes this layer, after implementing the new LCZ-based extent? If your code does more or less what I suggested, then feel free to add it to this branch. Then I can have a look! Thanks! — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/matthiasdemuzere/w2w/pull/127*issuecomment-2004054014__;Iw!!D9dNQwwGXtA!RTkum9YXmFWLue_g8e6pPytoF6s2jqDVPdIqSSBMAgY9clhqc6AXOnHejVJ-mqczdMGBUc7K0DH_D0PPamYBRYWK$, or unsubscribehttps://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABAA5Y3KZG5K4HEJZ5LCCXDYY32CVAVCNFSM6AAAAABESJ2WD6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDAMBUGA2TIMBRGQ__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!RTkum9YXmFWLue_g8e6pPytoF6s2jqDVPdIqSSBMAgY9clhqc6AXOnHejVJ-mqczdMGBUc7K0DH_D0PPalit7x7R$. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.>

@dargueso: hold your horses! I was just thinking about an alternative strategy ... see email for follow-up!

matthiasdemuzere · 2024-03-19T12:53:10Z

w2w/w2w.py

+        luf[dst_data.ISURBAN-1]=np.sum(luf.values[30:41,:],axis=0)
+        luf[30:41,:]=0
+
+


I wonder whether this should be formulated more generically? In the following sense:

For the built LCZ types, W2W considers by default LCZ labels 1 to 10, see here:

w2w/w2w/w2w.py

Line 80 in 84f7d80

parser.add_argument(

This information is then stored in Info.BUILT_LCZ.

But, a user might also define eg. LCZ 15 (=LCZ E / Bare rock or Paved) as built-up, by providing this as an argument to the tool.

I am not sure if:

anyhone has used this yet?

the tool is actually fully functional when using this argument?

But, perhaps this option should be considered to some extend, by using:

luse<=41 and luse<=61?

and using :42 and :62, instead of :41 and :61?

Does this makes sense?

matthiasdemuzere · 2024-03-19T12:54:38Z

w2w/w2w.py

+        urban_cat_list = [31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, urban_cat]
+    else:
+        urban_cat_list = [urban_cat]
+


see previous comment. Perhaps here the urban_cat_list can be defined depending on Info.LCZ_BUILT, that by default has [1 .. 10], but might also be [1 .. 11]?

matthiasdemuzere · 2024-03-19T12:55:15Z

w2w/w2w.py

+        urban_cat_list = LCZ_URBAN + [urban_cat]
+    else:
+        urban_cat_list = [urban_cat]
+


same comment here as above ...

Yes we can clean that a little bit. Perhaps using Info.LCZ_BUILT and dst_data_orig.NUM_LAND_CAT. But not sure how to deal with those options you mention: LCZ 11 and LCZ 15

matthiasdemuzere · 2024-04-19T07:57:44Z

Hi @andreazonato, @dargueso,

Here a quick summary of what we discussed at EGU24, including some tasks:

The enhancement of W2W is still an intermediate solution, to make sure it still works with WRF versions >= v4.4.2.
Andrea has been working on integrating W2W completely into WPS/WRF itself, a development that will hopefully be available in the next WRF release.

Until that time, users can use W2W in three different ways, depending on WRF version:

Case A (WRF < v4.4.2)

natural land use is the default MODIS map
LCZ information provided by the LCZ .tif file
LCZ information used with labels 40-51
set use_wudapt_lcz =1, so that also the LCZ parameter table will be used.

Case B (WRF >= v4.4.2)

B.1: geog_data_res = “default” (WPS namelist)
- natural land use is the default MODIS map
- LCZ information provided by the LCZ .tif file
- LCZ information used with labels 50-61
- set use_wudapt_lcz =1, so that also the LCZ parameter table will be used.
B.2: geog_data_res = “cglc_modis_lcz+default” (WPS namelist)
- natural land use is the new CGLC-MODIS-LCZ map
- LCZ extent is initially provided by CGLC-MODIS-LCZ. By using W2W, this LCZ extent will be overwritten by the LCZ extent provided in the .tif file. The use of W2W is still required in this case, as the cglc_modis_lcz product only adds the LCZ extent, and not yet the LCZ-based parameters required for WRF.
- LCZ information used with labels 50-61
- set use_wudapt_lcz =1, so that also the LCZ parameter table will be used.

Required steps to finalize this development:

@dargueso check if code works for the three use cases above
@dargueso / @matthiasdemuzere: make sure that BUILT_LCZ argument (resulting in 10 or 11 classes) is used throughout the routines.
@andreazonato @dargueso @jkittner: anything missing/wrong in the above description of the use cases? I think the sentence "The use of W2W is still required in this case, as the cglc_modis_lcz product only adds the LCZ extent, and not yet the LCZ-based parameters required for WRF" is at the core of all of it, but I am not sure this is clear enough? Perhaps we should have a more extended paragraph to explain this?
@jkittner and @matthiasdemuzere: make sure tests align with new implementations
@matthiasdemuzere: document these changes, both in the repo README, and perhaps also in JOSS .pdf version?
@matthiasdemuzere: indicate in the documentation that use_wudapt_lcz must be set to 0 when using the rural-only file generated by w2w in versions 4.4.2 and above
@jkittner merge final changes in new major version and push to pypi

If something is not clear or missing, please report in this space!

dargueso · 2024-04-22T11:20:45Z

I'm already testing that the code works for the three cases and that the generated files work with their respective WRF versions.
@andreazonato, I mentioned this before to you but it was never clear to me to what extent you're aware of the issue. If only a few LCZ are actually represented in the input file (geo_em.d01.nc), WRF crashes. This is regardless of where the geo_em file comes from and it crashes even if the file is directly generated with WPS. For example, I've tested a domain in the Sahara desert to make sure there are no cities and I get this error message:

Climatological albedo is used instead of table values
INITIALIZE THREE Noah LSM RELATED TABLES
Skipping over LUTYPE = USGS
 LANDUSE TYPE = MODIFIED_IGBP_MODIS_NOAH FOUND          20  CATEGORIES
 INPUT SOIL TEXTURE CLASSIFICATION = STAS
 SOIL TEXTURE CLASSIFICATION = STAS FOUND          19  CATEGORIES
-------------- FATAL CALLED ---------------
USING URBPARM_LCZ.TBL WITH OLD 3 URBAN CLASSES. SET USE_WUDAPT_LCZ=0
-------------------------------------------
Abort(1) on node 0 (rank 0 in comm 0): application called MPI_Abort(MPI_COMM_WORLD, 1) - process 0

It is obviously not the purpose of this repo or this discussion because it is a more general issue, but it affects w2w users when using the domains with urban areas removed. It is linked to this wrf-model/WRF#1878 and this #125

andreazonato · 2024-04-22T17:35:34Z

Hi guys,

@matthiasdemuzere , thank you for summarizing. I do not think there are additional issues. Maybe we will still reply and help W2W users until the W2W is inside WRF ( I guess, end of the year, depending on the reviews on the paper)

@dargueso Yes, this issue does not depend on w2w. I discussed it with Cenlin He, and we actually did not come to a solution actually, since there is no variable to stick to put a flag and decide whether to use LCZ or not. I will try to reach him again and see if we can find a possibility to solve it.

Thank you for testing

matthiasdemuzere · 2024-04-23T12:30:22Z

I'm already testing that the code works for the three cases and that the generated files work with their respective WRF versions.

Thanks @dargueso. I hope all works?
When you are done, we can continue finalizing the last adjustments, including treatment of 11 BUILT_LCZs and appropriate tests.

Also, @andreazonato mentioned the existence of a new matrix that was added, that contains, per pixel, the fraction of each LCZ label from the sub-grid scale information? I believe this variable should be added as a dummy, no? Should this be added only for WRF >= v4.4.2? @andreazonato ?

andreazonato · 2024-04-23T14:44:44Z

@matthiasdemuzere I think there is no need to add additional variables.
@dargueso is simply taking advantage of this variable (LANDUSEF, B.2: geog_data_res = “cglc_modis_lcz+default”) , to derive the percentage of each LCZ, and therefore compute the average. So it is simply something in the pre-processing and there is no need to bring it to the simulation step.
@dargueso, correct me if I'm wrong

matthiasdemuzere · 2024-04-24T08:03:28Z

@matthiasdemuzere I think there is no need to add additional variables.
@dargueso is simply taking advantage of this variable (LANDUSEF, B.2: geog_data_res = “cglc_modis_lcz+default”) , to derive the percentage of each LCZ, and therefore compute the average. So it is simply something in the pre-processing and there is no need to bring it to the simulation step.
@dargueso, correct me if I'm wrong

@andreazonato, just to make sure I 100% understand.

At EGU you mentioned that, when users use “cglc_modis_lcz+default”, a matrix was added in geo_em, that contains the LCZ fractions for every pixel. Information that is then used within WRF to get the appropriate morphological parameters.

But this functionality will only become available when your new WRF version is released?

Until that time, this matrix variable is not needed / used?

I just want to avoid that, when users use their own LCZ map from the .tif, in reality LCZ information from "cglc_modis_lcz+default" is used within the model?

dargueso · 2024-04-24T08:25:15Z

I think we're running in circles.

I don't use LANDUSEF (the matrix @matthiasdemuzere was referring too all along and contains percentage of each land use category in each grid cell). That matrix is in the original geo_em, it is not added by @andreazonato' WRF version, but it may be altered.

Now, if I ignore LANDUSEF in W2W as before, it will defined in a way that makes WRF resets all LCZs to some rural land use. This is because @andreazonato's code activated with use_wudapt_lcz looks into this variable, but previous WRF versions didn't . I found this in v4.5.2, but it probably happens some versions back too.

My approach was thus to add info to LANDUSEF variable based on the category assigned by W2W to each pixel. Hence for LCZ pixels is 1 or 0, and is 1 only for one LCZ. There is no sub grid information in LANDUSEF.

As far as I can tell, this prevents the issue below:

I just want to avoid that, when users use their own LCZ map from the .tif, in reality LCZ information from "cglc_modis_lcz+default" is used within the model?

Is this clear?
I have tested the code for all three cases and adapt it to make it work. Now I need to test that WRF ingest the w2w data well in all cases and doesn't complain.

matthiasdemuzere · 2024-04-24T08:48:47Z

I think we're running in circles.

Sorry, my fault. I just find it all too confusing.

But thanks for explaining further, I believe I understand now.
Let's hope WRF does not complain in each of these three cases!

I'll await that result before working further on this (tests, documentation, ...)

for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci

Fixes to ingest geo_em files with LCZ labels from 31 to 40 or from 50 to 60.

for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci

Setting NUM_LAND_CAT to 21 in the NoUrb output, which has cities removed. Some formatting too.

…of categories

…om orig_num_land_cat

Change order of defining new landuse

for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci

20 correspondends to 21 but w/o lakes

jkittner · 2024-11-11T00:02:27Z

I allowed 20 categories as well. Tests are now passing, but we reduced test coverage meaning we are not testing:

61 categories
an invalid file which has an incorrect number of land use classes

I attached the test coverage here:

htmlcov.zip

you can generate that by running tox -e py311 and after that coverage html.

Would be great if someone could add a test for that - could be similar to the test_main_shanghai_data test but with different files. If you want to test for an error, use with pytest.raises(ValueError) as excinfo and then check the excinfo to contain the correct message.

matthiasdemuzere requested review from andreazonato and jkittner March 12, 2024 14:05

matthiasdemuzere added the enhancement New feature or request label Mar 12, 2024

jkittner approved these changes Mar 12, 2024

View reviewed changes

dargueso mentioned this pull request Mar 15, 2024

Using urbparm_lcz.tbl with old 3 urban classes. Set use_wudapt_lcz=0 #125

Closed

matthiasdemuzere commented Mar 19, 2024

View reviewed changes

dargueso mentioned this pull request Mar 26, 2024

wrf falling back on default urban morphology instead of using cglc-modis-lcz-100m dataset #129

Closed

matthiasdemuzere and others added 27 commits November 11, 2024 00:47

fix tests

7c3b747

fix tests

505923c

adapt tests, use choices in argparse for validating the version

d7b3115

[pre-commit.ci] auto fixes from pre-commit.com hooks

2514114

for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci

clean-up

c03b686

update README

43c7411

[pre-commit.ci] auto fixes from pre-commit.com hooks

e68f938

for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci

update README

d112be2

Update w2w.py

a9c167b

Fixes to ingest geo_em files with LCZ labels from 31 to 40 or from 50 to 60.

Define new LANDUSEF based on LCZ categories

03972e5

[pre-commit.ci] auto fixes from pre-commit.com hooks

e2f84ec

for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci

Modified global attribute when removing urban areas

24738bb

Setting NUM_LAND_CAT to 21 in the NoUrb output, which has cities removed. Some formatting too.

Fixed Future warning. Deprecation of downcasting

87fd7d1

Loop over all categories in the output file, not the original number …

b0bf894

…of categories

Reset lu_index with LCZ to urban_cat for all cases

3b5c29c

defined num_land_cat for destination params file, may be different fr…

36bb6e2

…om orig_num_land_cat

correct reset of LANDUSEF to 0 when creating LCZ_extent file

8b7636c

Check if there are still urban areas in NoUrb file all supported cases

7ee9200

Removed values, no longer needed. It was throwing an error before.

a2f5a8e

Define LCZ_URBAN before usage

3621637

Update w2w.py

8359d10

Change order of defining new landuse

[pre-commit.ci] auto fixes from pre-commit.com hooks

17b0be0

for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci

[pre-commit.ci] auto fixes from pre-commit.com hooks

80d4931

for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci

np.float_ to np.float64

f6bc2a9

remove bottleneck dependency

5d95a6a

in1d is deprecated, use isin instead

5bad57e

also allow 20 land categories

7801b3e

20 correspondends to 21 but w/o lakes

jkittner force-pushed the add_wrf_version branch from 1dd459d to 7801b3e Compare November 10, 2024 23:58

jkittner self-requested a review November 11, 2024 00:13

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Add wrf version #127

Add wrf version #127

matthiasdemuzere commented Mar 12, 2024

jkittner Mar 12, 2024

matthiasdemuzere Mar 13, 2024

jkittner Mar 13, 2024

matthiasdemuzere Mar 13, 2024

jkittner Mar 12, 2024

matthiasdemuzere Mar 13, 2024

jkittner Mar 13, 2024 •

edited

Loading

andreazonato commented Mar 12, 2024

matthiasdemuzere commented Mar 13, 2024

jkittner commented Mar 13, 2024

dargueso commented Mar 15, 2024

dargueso commented Mar 15, 2024

andreazonato commented Mar 15, 2024

dargueso commented Mar 15, 2024

dargueso commented Mar 15, 2024

matthiasdemuzere commented Mar 18, 2024

dargueso commented Mar 18, 2024 via email

matthiasdemuzere commented Mar 18, 2024

dargueso commented Mar 18, 2024 via email

matthiasdemuzere commented Mar 18, 2024

matthiasdemuzere Mar 19, 2024 •

edited

Loading

matthiasdemuzere Mar 19, 2024

matthiasdemuzere Mar 19, 2024

dargueso Mar 19, 2024

matthiasdemuzere commented Apr 19, 2024 •

edited by dargueso

Loading

dargueso commented Apr 22, 2024

andreazonato commented Apr 22, 2024

matthiasdemuzere commented Apr 23, 2024

andreazonato commented Apr 23, 2024

matthiasdemuzere commented Apr 24, 2024

dargueso commented Apr 24, 2024

matthiasdemuzere commented Apr 24, 2024

jkittner commented Nov 11, 2024

		luf[dst_data.ISURBAN-1]=np.sum(luf.values[30:41,:],axis=0)
		luf[30:41,:]=0

Add wrf version #127

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Add wrf version #127

Conversation

matthiasdemuzere commented Mar 12, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jkittner Mar 13, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

andreazonato commented Mar 12, 2024

matthiasdemuzere commented Mar 13, 2024

jkittner commented Mar 13, 2024

dargueso commented Mar 15, 2024

dargueso commented Mar 15, 2024

andreazonato commented Mar 15, 2024

dargueso commented Mar 15, 2024

dargueso commented Mar 15, 2024

matthiasdemuzere commented Mar 18, 2024

dargueso commented Mar 18, 2024 via email

matthiasdemuzere commented Mar 18, 2024

dargueso commented Mar 18, 2024 via email

matthiasdemuzere commented Mar 18, 2024

matthiasdemuzere Mar 19, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

matthiasdemuzere commented Apr 19, 2024 • edited by dargueso Loading

dargueso commented Apr 22, 2024

andreazonato commented Apr 22, 2024

matthiasdemuzere commented Apr 23, 2024

andreazonato commented Apr 23, 2024

matthiasdemuzere commented Apr 24, 2024

dargueso commented Apr 24, 2024

matthiasdemuzere commented Apr 24, 2024

jkittner commented Nov 11, 2024

jkittner Mar 13, 2024 •

edited

Loading

matthiasdemuzere Mar 19, 2024 •

edited

Loading

matthiasdemuzere commented Apr 19, 2024 •

edited by dargueso

Loading