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

NOAA-6 spectral responses are wrong for channel 1 & 2 #155

Closed
adybbroe opened this issue Sep 16, 2022 · 2 comments · Fixed by #157
Closed

NOAA-6 spectral responses are wrong for channel 1 & 2 #155

adybbroe opened this issue Sep 16, 2022 · 2 comments · Fixed by #157
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@adybbroe
Copy link
Collaborator

adybbroe commented Sep 16, 2022

Code Sample, a minimal, complete, and verifiable piece of code

When trying to plot the SW RSR data for NOAA-6 I saw that channel 1 and 2 were off, by what looks like a factor of 10:

rsr_band_0040_1000

# Your code here
python bin/composite_rsr_plot.py --platform_name NOAA-6 --sensor avhrr -r 0.4 10.0

Problem description

I found the possible cause for this when digging out the original files from NOAA that were used to generate the internal Pyspectral RSR files. The unit change from Ångström for ch1 and 2 to nm for the other channels. nm is used for all other platforms and channels for AVHRR/1, so in the conversion script we are using a constant scaling applied to all channels and platforms to go from nm to microns!

In the plot above one can see how channel 1 and 2 are positioned to the right of channel 3!

Expected Output

Actual Result, Traceback if applicable

Versions of Python, package at hand and relevant dependencies

This is with the latest version of the RSR data from Zenodo. Version v1.1.0

Thank you for reporting an issue !

@adybbroe adybbroe self-assigned this Sep 16, 2022
@adybbroe adybbroe added the bug label Sep 16, 2022
This was referenced Sep 27, 2022
@djhoese
Copy link
Member

djhoese commented Oct 5, 2022

This is closed with #157, right?

@adybbroe
Copy link
Collaborator Author

This is closed with #157, right?

Yes, right, fixed that now.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants