Original release topic

[pdw112]

In the README: "NOTE: Square brackets are not part of the parameter, they indicate optionality."

[edit:] but having said that, I believe you are the first who will run CumulusUtils on Windows 7. So, not sure it will run. It failed on an old Win 8.0! Keep me informed.

A thanks now it's running on cumulus 1 with win 7.

[HansR]

OK, could you send me the link/location so that I can take it up in the list (only for the pwsFWI page)?

[HansR]

Version 1.0.0 has been released.

Next step will be: implementation of purple (catastrophic) warning level.
Other functionalities / suggestions are welcome.

Graphing data is under investigation.
Other sorting output is also under investigation.

The last two will take some time ...

[HansR]

Version 1.0.1 is online
In top10, changed the heading unit 'percentage' to '%'

[pdw112]

OK, could you send me the link/location so that I can take it up in the list (only for the pwsFWI page)?

Hi Hans,

Here you can find my test file.
http://weerstationtilburgreeshof.nl/cumulus/fwitest.php

[Phil23]

http://weerstationtilburgreeshof.nl/cumulus/fwitest.php

26/07/2019 jumps out.

[pdw112]

pwsFWIanalyse send to Hans for the check.

[HansR]

http://weerstationtilburgreeshof.nl/cumulus/fwitest.php

26/07/2019 jumps out.

Yes @phil, that is a very good observation. In fact, I just spent my whole morning trying to find the cause of this anomaly and - although I found some minor bugs around the algorithm (and fixed them ) - at the moment I think it is a correct calculation and it has to do with the strange weather we had at that time (in the whole of the Netherlands, actually in the whole of Western Europe).

It was the second heatwave (out of three total this year which is uncommon in itself) which started around 22/7 and culminated at 26/7 with the highest temperature (officially) ever recorded in the Netherlands on the 25th of 40.7 °C. What we see in the pwsFWI record is that it starts to rise very quickly, starting 22/7 and reaching 539 on the 26th. That day ended with a lot of rain (and probably thunder) so after that day the pwsFWI value starts to fall. I have been analysing this, trying to find a cause. So far I think it is a true and valid calculation of an extreme anomalous weather situation.

I did ask pdw112 for his pwsFWIanalyse.csv (and maybe his dayfile) to analyse it a bit more in detail and I will continue to check the algorithm for error, but so far I am pretty confident of the numbers. The fact that it skipped the yellow warning phase is in line with what the Dutch felt during those days: extreme unusual weather. Compare this btw with my own station (300 km to the north of Reeshof) and notice it did not get so hot nor dry and that it did not end with so much rain. The pwsFWI did not react as violently as it did with pdw112.

Very interesting period/calculation which showed the use of the analysis mode very good.
I I have no reason to change anything because of this observation, but I may come back on this. So far I would say it is weird but can be explained.
No error here.

@pdw112: just saw your additional message. Thanks, I'll continue analysing.

[HansR]

I looked at it again and wrote a blog about it: Behaviour of pwsFWI with first rain.

As this is not really a subject for the board Website - General, I suggest we move discussions like these to the other thread in the General Discussion - General Board. The thread Fire Weather, a new approach seems well to the point I think. This thread can be kept to the software then (updates, questions, suggestions etc...). I make a reference to this message in the other thread. Any follow up can be made there.

[HansR]

Please note, that I have seen and that have been reported some anomalies in the user interface (the generated table). Especially when the value of pwsFWI should be red but instead turns green (Inverrell, AUS), and on the other hand where the value of the horizontal indicator is very low but actually moves to the end of the scale (San Sebastian, ES), this is an issue related to the decimal point.

As the part of the code dealing with the output is currenlty overhauled because of the introduction of the 6 step warning system, please be patient for just a few more days. Currently in the testing phase.

[Phil23]

The definition of the zones of pwsFWI (at this moment, it may change as result of testing):
0 - 210: green
210 - 350: blue
350 - 490: yellow
490 - 630: orange
630 - : red

I think it would be good feedback to display these numbers under the colour bar.
Probably under the colour boundary using the upper number of each range.

I find I search back for the above detail in order to interpret whether we are at the lower or upper end of a given category.

Phil

[HansR]

Understand your point, will work it out somewhere. Not in next version though, but soon. In the mean time : print it out

[HansR]

Version 1.5.0 is online.

A relatively big update, pwsFWI reaching some kind of maturity. Especially interesting for the semi-arid zones (Warning level 6 added). Also pay attention for a different location for the output. Some fine tuning on the pwsFWI web interface may follow.

@Phil: I managed to squeeze in the values of the colours.

And NOTE:
Not to forget the intensive cooperation and lectures of Beteljuice.
I hate HTML/CSS, but he makes that irrelevant and likeable at the same time.

[Phil23]

Version 1.5.0 is online.

@Phil: I managed to squeeze in the values of the colours.

Not seeing the values here.
Same in both IE & Chrome.

I'm assuming they should appear in this view.

Capture.JPG

[HansR]

Ah, only in the beteljuice format. Forgot the Standard
Will squeeze it in there ... but that may take a few days