Opened 3 years ago
Closed 3 years ago
#707 closed defect (fixed)
Revisit call to range-check for level 1B input (-inv) in ropp_pp_occ_tool
Reported by: | Stig Syndergaard | Owned by: | Stig Syndergaard |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | DMI ROPP developments |
Component: | ropp_io | Version: | 10.0 |
Keywords: | Cc: |
Description
When input bangle is less than -0.001 the range-check after reading in the bending angles gives -99999000 that cannot be handled by the processing. The result is that no refractivity is generated. One input example is: ben_20210811_045421_SE6A_R005_O_3000_0010.nc.
Investigate if range-checking can be avoided here, or otherwise how to solve the problem.
Attachments (1)
Change history (4)
by , 3 years ago
Attachment: | examplesL2a99.png added |
---|
comment:1 by , 3 years ago
Resolution: | → wontfix |
---|---|
Status: | new → closed |
comment:2 by , 3 years ago
Resolution: | wontfix |
---|---|
Status: | closed → reopened |
comment:3 by , 3 years ago
Resolution: | → fixed |
---|---|
Status: | reopened → closed |
The problem has been solved with r7035, since a similar solution was anyways needed for the problem in #696. In both cases the removal of already missing values when calling ropp_io_rangecheck is preserved, but the code changes make it possible to avoid new missing values to be introduced when ranchk = .FALSE.
It turns out that such profiles are severely degraded. Six cases from 2021-11-08 to 2021-11-23 were found (those failing QC L2a99 in GPAC 3.0 processing). They look like this:
It is probably not a good idea to remove the range checking, since it has the purpose of zapping profiles with missing data from the input file, which is desirable. The side-effect is that we here introduce additional missing data where BA < 0.001 rad, resulting in the failure to generate refractivity. To avoid this would require increasing the valid range below -0.001 rad. That would allow these profiles to be processed to refractivity, albeit being useless profiles. But it is hardly worth it, and there will never be any guaranties that there are not other profiles with even smaller BA. So we leave here and close the ticket.