On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 9:11 AM, John Caron <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > I think another possibility is to put the bounds information on the > "continuous integral" data variables, rather than on the time coordinate. > Otherwise we have this proliferation of time coordinates, which confuses > things. > > I am sorry -- the proliferation of time coordinates describes things, it does not confuse things. Mislabelling the data w.r.t. time confuses things. This is particularly true of models which put variables of vastly different time meanings on the same grid, and never explain what they have done. An instantaneous sample is considerably different from an integration over the interval (careful time analysis will undoubtably reveal a sub-gridpoint time lag). This is not just a model problem -- current meters once upon a time calculated average speed and instantaneous direction, which messed up calculations of component velocities. Also, thermisters have thermal mass, also introducing a lag with respect to other "simultaneously" measured quantities. We are just beginning to describe data better -- this is no time to perpetuate mistakes. -- Dr. M. Benno Blumenthal [email protected] International Research Institute for climate and society The Earth Institute at Columbia University Lamont Campus, Palisades NY 10964-8000 (845) 680-4450
_______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
