Jonathan Gregory wrote:
Dear all
"realization" is fine as a standard name. I had forgotten we had introduced it.
I withdraw my suggestion of ensemble_member_identifier.
Thus, the standard name (of realization) can be used to identify an ensemble
axis. I think that providing an axis attribute as well could be helpful: with
spatiotemporal axes we have both methods of identification, and it is possible
there might be ensemble axes in which realization was a not a good choice of
standard name.
Best wishes
Jonathan
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
using Tigge and ENSEMBLES datasets as examples (with GDS willing to modify
their output), it sounds like a modest proposal is to recommend either of these
attributes to identify the ensemble coordinate variable:
axis = "ensemble";
standard_name = "realization";
with the idea of keeping it simple and follow paco's advice:
It was clear from the previous round of discussions that it would be very
difficult to aggregate ensemble members produced with different grids
using NetCDF3.
other standard names suggested are:
experiment_id, source, forcing, experiment, model, institution
which would involve clarifying what they mean in this context, and try to
answer jeremy's question:
what you do to maintain traceability back to the original model experiments.
is there someone who is willing to take this on and marshall this through the
process?
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
