This archive contains answers to questions sent to Unidata support through mid-2025. Note that the archive is no longer being updated. We provide the archive for reference; many of the answers presented here remain technically correct, even if somewhat outdated. For the most up-to-date information on the use of NSF Unidata software and data services, please consult the Software Documentation first.
Steve,The GFS para was inadvertent and we will take measures soon (today) to stop this.
For the grib1/grib2 conversion. I believe we have all data sets available in both formats at the WOC. If you provide a desired schedule, we'll work with you to make it happen.
Joey Steve Chiswell wrote:
Joe / Paula, I was out of town for the past 2 weeks (in OC Maryland) and during this time, the parallel run gfs files stared to appear in the CONDUIT data stream: data/nccf/com/gfs/para/gfs.* Was this inadvertent? I know we were waiting to hear from the TIGGE group about some addded parameters, but those wouldn't be in this data set I assume. If possible, can the insertion pattern for the gfs data sets be tightened up to exclude these products? Also, now that the grib1->grib2 date is official, I will want to coordinate with you on replacing existing grib1 data sets being sent with grib2. Do youhave dates this fall that you would prefer or need to avoid making these typeof changes? We are generally talking about the NAM data sets being sent. We already have RUC 20km being sent in grib2 as well as the GFS 0.5 degree, so eventually we would just stop the grib1 RUC products, and then possibly convert the 1.0 degree GFS with the grib2 files being produced (though we'd poll the users since that would essentially be a duplicate of the 0.5 degree dataset already being sent). Thanks, Steve
begin:vcard fn:Joe Carr n:Carr;Joe org:National Weather Service;PMB/NCO/NCEP email;internet:address@hidden title:Acting PMB-Dataflow Team Lead tel;work:301-763-8000x7709 version:2.1 end:vcard