Contents

Talk:Canadian weather radar network

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Weather: Met instruments Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Meteorological instruments and data task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Canada: Governments Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Governments of Canada.

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Canadian weather radar network. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060615050828/http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/projects/nrp/index_e.cfmtohttp://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/projects/nrp/index_e.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did some quick check on the data but I won't be doing extensive investigation. If someone want to have a look, you probably need to be a programmer. Install conda, then the wradlib library, and run the following code to start looking at the data:

This will display the structure

>>> file = "C:/Users/normandp/Desktop/20220629T1406Z_MSC_Radar-VolumeScans_CASBV.hdf5" >>> data = wrl.io.read_generic_hdf5(file) >>> for e in data: ... print(e)

Then, to investigate what is what... display a few of the sections and you can reverse engineer the structure

See the b field change between the various "data" groups, dbzh, rhohc (dual pol cross correlation), uphidp (dual pol differential phase), wradh might be the velocity (doppler) spectrum width? I think? :

>>> data["dataset1/data1/what"] {'attrs': {'gain': 0.5, 'nodata': 255.0, 'offset': -31.5, 'quantity': b'DBZH', 'undetect': 0.0}} >>> data["dataset1/data2/what"] {'attrs': {'gain': 0.003937007859349251, 'nodata': 256.0, 'offset': 0.0, 'quantity': b'RHOHV', 'undetect': 0.0}} >>> data["dataset1/data3/what"] {'attrs': {'gain': 0.005493331700563431, 'nodata': 65535.0, 'offset': 0.0, 'quantity': b'UPHIDP', 'undetect': 0.0}} >>> data["dataset1/data4/what"] {'attrs': {'gain': 0.12466653436422348, 'nodata': 255.0, 'offset': 0.12470000237226486, 'quantity': b'WRADH', 'undetect': 0.0}}

And these... the elevation change between the "dataset":

>>> data["dataset1/where"] {'attrs': {'a1gate': 78, 'elangle': 24.399999618530273, 'nbins': 245, 'nrays': 360, 'rscale': 500.0, 'rstart': 0.0}} >>> data["dataset2/where"] {'attrs': {'a1gate': 23, 'elangle': 21.200000762939453, 'nbins': 245, 'nrays': 360, 'rscale': 500.0, 'rstart': 0.0}} >>> data["dataset3/where"] {'attrs': {'a1gate': 329, 'elangle': 18.0, 'nbins': 245, 'nrays': 360, 'rscale': 500.0, 'rstart': 0.0}}

Should we rename the model of the S-band radars to reflect the acquisition of Selex by (ultimately) Leonardo? I don't know if Selex called it "METEOR 1700S" or just "1700S", but after Selex was acquired by Leonardo it seems to have been marketed as "Selex METEOR 1700S" for a while, and now it is just "METEOR 1700S": https://electronics.leonardo.com/documents/16277707/18389918/METEOR+1700S_17071035102_EN.pdf - Wikkiwonkk (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that we could put an explanation in the text saying that Selex was a division of Leonardo S.p.A. and is marketed now as Leonardo Electronics. Then just put METEOR 1700S in the table as the reference indicate. Pierre cb (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untangling the corporate history, Selex ES - a subsidiary of Finmeccanica - was formed in January 2013. It lasted until January 1 2016 when Finmeccanica integrated all its subsidiaries to become one large company, with Selex ES's activities getting spread out into a number of different divisions. Finmeccanica rebranded itself Leonardo in a process that ran from March 2016 to January 2017.

Environment Canada announced the radar upgrade project on February 28 2017 (https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/news/2017/02/the_government_ofcanadainveststomodernizeweather-forecastinginfr.html) but the first contract was actually awarded on June 21 2016 (https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/contract-history/K3D33-141144-001-TOR-9). My guess is that list of sub-contracts names the companies by what they were called when the bidding/evaluation/selection process started, not when the contract was finally awarded.

My gut feeling is that the way to go is, as you say, call it the METEOR 1700S in the table, but to flip the other reference, eg. something like "... contract with Leonardo S.p.A. (which had absorbed Selex ES, the maker of the METEOR 1700S) ...". My example is a lot clunkier than what you wrote, but is technically more accurate. Or at least I think it is. - Wikkiwonkk (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just think the simpler the better, the reader can follow the links for more info. Pierre cb (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, simple and clear is better. Your change to the History section is good. How about: in the Modernization project section changing "The new radar chosen is the Selex METEOR 1700S ..." to "The new radars are the Leonardo METEOR 1700S (formerly marketed by Selex ES) ...", and then change the table entries to 'METEOR 1700S'. - Wikkiwonkk (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Pierre cb (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article uses individual bolded letters to explain the callsign abbreviations. This is directly in conflict with MOS:BOLD which says Avoid using boldface (or other font gimmicks) in the expansions of acronyms. The claim that bold font is "necessary" to explain the acronym seems unconvincing to me; there is no ambiguity in seeing which letters in "CASAG" come from "Aldergrove", which letters in "CASBE" come from "Bethune", etc. The nonstandard use of bold here does not help the reader. CodeTalker (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]