Enhance TC-Pairs to derive the full circle wind radius from the wind radius quadrants

[JohnHalleyGotway]

Describe the Enhancement

This idea originally arose during the 5/1/2023 NOAA METplus telecon (see notes). Olivia Ostwald was able to get the wind radius quadrants from the output of TC-Pairs but asked why the full circle radii are always reported as bad data.

In the ATCF file format, the WINDCODE column can be set to AAA or specify one of the quadrants (usually it's NEQ). For AAA, the value in the next column is interpreted as the "full circle" wind radius. For NEQ, the next 4 columns are interpreted at the values for the quadrants (clockwise, starting with quadrant specified). See the set_quad_vals().

The ATCF data on the NHC ftp site, only CARQ specifies the full circle (i.e. AAA) but the wind radius is always 0, which is interpreted as a missing data value. All other models specify quadrants (i.e. NEQ) instead. When AAA is not used, the "full circle" value is just stored as bad data in MET. So when we compute a summary of that column, the mean is computed as NA.

This task is to revise that logic and modify the output in the TCMPR line type from TC-Pairs. If full circle (AAA) winds are provided in the input ATCF data, continue writing them to the output. If not, do the follow:

1. Compute AAL_WIND_34 as the mean of the non-zero values from ANE_WIND_34, ASE_WIND, ASW_WIND, ANW_WIND.
2. Compute BAL_WIND_34 as the mean of the non-zero values from BNE_WIND_34, BSE_WIND, BSW_WIND, BNW_WIND.
3. Apply the same logic fro the 50 and 64 kt wind columns.

Note that this logic was confirmed by Kate Musgrave at CSU/CIRA.

For reference, see this HWRF wind radius plot titled "Average 34kt Radius Errors".

@KathrynNewman, please contact NHC and HAFS staff to confirm that this logic is correct.

Time Estimate

1 day.

Sub-Issues

Consider breaking the enhancement down into sub-issues.
No sub-issues

Relevant Deadlines

List relevant project deadlines here or state NONE.

Funding Source

Define the source of funding and account keys here or state NONE.

Define the Metadata

Assignee

• Select engineer(s) or no engineer required
• Select scientist(s) or no scientist required

Labels

• Select component(s)
• Select priority
• Select requestor(s)

Projects and Milestone

• Select Repository and/or Organization level Project(s) or add alert: NEED CYCLE ASSIGNMENT label
• Select Milestone as the next official version or Future Versions

Define Related Issue(s)

Consider the impact to the other METplus components.

• METplus, MET, METdataio, METviewer, METexpress, METcalcpy, METplotpy
  No impacts.

Enhancement Checklist

See the METplus Workflow for details.

• Complete the issue definition above, including the Time Estimate and Funding Source.
• Fork this repository or create a branch of develop.
  Branch name: feature_<Issue Number>_<Description>
• Complete the development and test your changes.
• Add/update log messages for easier debugging.
• Add/update unit tests.
• Add/update documentation.
• Push local changes to GitHub.
• Submit a pull request to merge into develop.
  Pull request: feature <Issue Number> <Description>
• Define the pull request metadata, as permissions allow.
  Select: Reviewer(s) and Development issues
  Select: Repository level development cycle Project for the next official release
  Select: Milestone as the next official version
• Iterate until the reviewer(s) accept and merge your changes.
• Delete your fork or branch.
• Close this issue.