Etienne Tourigny writes:
The work needed would be to map the stations to the associated region
and then map the regions to the files for each forecast period. And
then write the code to retrieve and put this data in the new weather
infrastructure.
I'd like to contribute. Does this
I've found a way to get winds aloft in a text format. It's on the
weather.noaa.gov site.
It's available in an html page at http://aviationweather.gov/fdwinds.
Even better, the following urls have them in plain text for each
region: http://weather.noaa.gov/pub/data/raw/fd/ and
On Mon, 2003-06-09 at 05:45, Erik Hofman wrote:
David Megginson wrote:
Does anyone know of a world-wide source for downloadable digital
information on winds aloft?
I think this comes closest to what is available.
I'm not sure how usefull these TAF reports are:
David Megginson wrote:
Does anyone know of a world-wide source for downloadable digital
information on winds aloft?
I think this comes closest to what is available.
I'm not sure how usefull these TAF reports are:
http://weather.noaa.gov/weather/taf.shtml
Erik
Erik Hofman writes:
I think this comes closest to what is available. I'm not sure how
usefull these TAF reports are:
http://weather.noaa.gov/weather/taf.shtml
A TAF is still ground-based -- a METAR is an actual observation, while
TAF is a forecast, covering (mostly) the same stuff.
All
* David Megginson -- Sunday 08 June 2003 16:51:
You can now set up the environment subsystem to use different weather
conditions at different elevations, and to interpolate smoothly among
them. The system also handles the boundary layer (near the ground).
Now I'm in trouble. How would I let
Melchior FRANZ writes:
Now I'm in trouble. How would I let the metar script set its data?
Delete =all= boundary layer values and only set let lowest boundary
layer at station elevation? But what if I start from KCEZ and then
land at an airport with much lower ASL?
The METAR doesn't
* David Megginson -- Sunday 08 June 2003 18:56:
The METAR doesn't tell you anything about conditions aloft.
I know -- that is the problem. :-) On the other hand, assuming the
station level values for every altitude, as I do now, is of course
not any better than having to make up a few values.
Melchior FRANZ writes:
OK, I'll do that. How about values below metar station level?
I'd just hold them constant. There will be pathological situations,
like a station on a hill 5000 ft above a valley, but I don't know what
else we can do for now.
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson,
* David Megginson -- Sunday 08 June 2003 19:45:
Melchior FRANZ writes:
OK, I'll do that. How about values below metar station level?
I'd just hold them constant. There will be pathological situations,
like a station on a hill 5000 ft above a valley, but I don't know what
else we can do
10 matches
Mail list logo
