Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Question re latitudes and scanning mode in Lambert grids #55

Open
shahramn opened this issue Oct 21, 2020 · 2 comments
Open

Question re latitudes and scanning mode in Lambert grids #55

shahramn opened this issue Oct 21, 2020 · 2 comments
Labels
question Further information is requested

Comments

@shahramn
Copy link

Regarding the GRIB templates
Grid definition template 3.20 – polar stereographic projection
Grid definition template 3.30 – Lambert conformal

We have a question regarding the key:
La1 - latitude of first grid point

Is this latitude meant to only increase, or can it decrease as well? The reason I ask is the following sentence for the LoV key (in the WMO templates doc):

"LoV is the longitude value of the meridian which is parallel to the y-axis (or columns of the grid) along which latitude increases as the y-coordinate increases (the orientation longitude may or may not appear on a particular grid)."

The phrase in bold is causing us some trouble. We have some GRIBs which have a scanning order of +i -j which different decoders treat differently. In Panoply the latitude always increases (scanning order is ignored) whereas wgrib2 uses the scanning order and the latitude decreases.
If it wasn't for that sentence, I would treat the latitude just like other grids and take the scanning order into account but it seems for Lambert specially there are different interpretations and many centres are producing data which conflicts in this regard.
Many thanks

@efucile
Copy link
Member

efucile commented Oct 22, 2020

Thank you @shahramn
This is an interesting question and I hope someone in @wmo-im/tt-tdcf will be able to provide an answer. Otherwise we will need to take the responsibility to choose one interpretation. It looks to me that the scanning order has precedence on this description that is aimed only to describe the geometry.

@sebvi
Copy link
Contributor

sebvi commented Nov 5, 2020

We did not discuss this during the meeting but it could be useful to have an active discussion now with possibly some clear recommendation agreed during the December meeting

@amilan17 amilan17 added this to the noTargetMilestone milestone Sep 23, 2021
@amilan17 amilan17 added the question Further information is requested label Sep 23, 2021
@amilan17 amilan17 moved this to Backlog/On hold in GRIB2 Amendments Aug 22, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
question Further information is requested
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants