Cecelia I support 1) mostly for backward compatibility. I would also strongly encourage but not demand that users change their base dates to after 1800 when it makes sense to do so.
And, I (again) want to make sure that LTMs and their time values are addressed before any decisions are made as to negative times and using base dates of 1-1-1 and the issue of what year to use for climatologies. LTM dates are a problem when one needs to use a calendar based on real dates. Cathy On 12/12/12 9:04 AM, Cecelia DeLuca - NOAA Affiliate wrote: > Hi Steve, Jonathan and all, > > There are not that many options being discussed. > > With respect to the default calendar: > > 1 keep the Julian-Gregorian calendar as default (no change) > 2 remove the Julian-Gregorian calendar as default, and have no default > calendar (grid analogy) > 3 replace the Julian-Gregorian calendar as default with the proleptic > Gregorian calendar > 4 replace the Julian-Gregorian calendar as default with a strict > Gregorian calendar > > Maybe it makes sense for people to cite (or rank) their preference at > this point? > > There were a couple other proposals, depending on which of above is > selected: > 5 create a strict Gregorian calendar (optional for 1, 2, 3 and needed > for 4) > 6 remove the Julian-Gregorian calendar (impossible for 1, optional for > 2, 3, 4) > > Again, maybe worth it to see where people are after the round of > discussion? > > Best, > Cecelia > > > > On 12/10/2012 12:40 PM, Steve Hankin wrote: >> Hi Jonathan, >> >> I'm not sure if my remarks below conflict with your proposed >> resolution. But they do dispute the facts you assert, and these >> waters are so muddy that agreeing on the facts seems an important >> first step. >> >> On 12/10/2012 1:21 AM, Jonathan Gregory wrote: >>> Dear Jon >>> >>>> Just to repeat a remark that Steve Hankin made whose implications have not >>>> been explored in this discussion: different countries adopted the >>>> Gregorian calendar at different times. (Greece didn't adopt it till >>>> 1923!) So what is considered a valid Gregorian date varies from country >>>> to country (and some of those countries don't even exist any more, or at >>>> least the boundaries have changed...) >>>> 2. The non-proleptic Gregorian calendar is extremely problematic for >>>> historical observations as well as for models (astronomers use the Julian >>>> calendar consistently for this reason). >>> Yes, that's right. Nonetheless I don't think we can abolish the real-world >>> calendar, despite its ambiguities, because *_it's the one we really use!_* >> >> Are you sure this is true? Evidence seems to suggest that our >> community has _no use for the mixed Gregorian/Julian calendar at >> all_, except the need to resolve the backwards compatibility mess we >> have created for ourselves. >> >> * In everyday life we use is the modern Gregorian calendar, and are >> not concerned with historical calendar changes. >> * In numerical climate modeling we use the proleptic Greogorian >> calendar. (I'll wager you there is no serious paleo-modeling >> done with an 11 day discontinuity in its time axis. ) >> * What do Renaissance historians use when discussing dates that are >> rendered ambiguous by differing timings of the Julian/Gregorian >> transition in different locations? Do any of us know? Does it >> effect any use of CF that we are aware of? >> >>> As you say, we should be clearer about what the real-world calendar means, >>> in >>> cases where _users really want to use it._ >> >> Who are these users? Where is the user who intersects with our >> community and really wants to use the mixed Julian/Gregorian >> calendar? The only potential user I can think of would be a >> Renaissance historian looking at paleo climate model output. That >> hypothetical person would already understand that manual calendar >> translations were needed to make sense of precise dates at that time >> of history (and would almost surely shrug off an 11 day timing >> uncertainty in a paleo climate model outputs in any case). >> >> As Cecelia said, lets drive a stake through the heart of this madness >> ... at least to the maximum degree we can given inescapable backwards >> compatibility concerns. >> >> - Steve >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CF-metadata mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata > > -- > =================================================================== > Cecelia DeLuca > NESII/CIRES/NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory > 325 Broadway, Boulder 80305-337 > Email: [email protected] > Phone: 303-497-3604 > > > _______________________________________________ > CF-metadata mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata -- ---------------------------------------------- NOAA/ESRL PSD and CIRES CDC 303-497-6263 http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/cathy.smith/ Emails about data/webpages may get quicker responses from emailing [email protected]
_______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
