I think that these are fairly important QC checks for wind and current
data, and that they deserve to have standard names to make them
more useful. Although the algorithms may differ between instruments,
and may even be proprietary, these variables are often the most useful
way to provide information about the reliability of the geophysical
measurements.
I had asked about the best way to label this parameter for ADCP data
several years ago, but I wasn't able to explain why standard_error wasn't
appropriate (it's a little outside my field).
Could we use a standard name modifier like 'instrument_error',
or even just 'error', to convey the meaning of instrument-provided
error information? That would be much simpler than requesting a
name for each instrument type (although I suppose there may be
only a handful of those).
Thanks - Nan
On 7/1/13 1:10 PM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
Dear Randy
If it is very product-specific, is it really a geophysical quantity which needs
a standard name? I mean, are there data from several sources for this quantity
which should be regarded as comparable, and which therefore should have a
common standard name?
If the answer is Yes, then I would suggest you propose a standard name which
explicit names the algorithm, like e.g. isccp_cloud_area_fraction.
Best wishes
Jonathan
----- Forwarded message from
"[email protected]"<[email protected]> -----
From: "[email protected]"<[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 08:28:15 -0400
Subject: [CF-metadata] how to represent a non-standard error
Folks: the GOES-R ground system generates a derived motion winds product.
Accompaning each wind speed& direction in the product is the amount of
error associated withe the vector. This error is not a standard_error, but
an error estimate based on a custom algorithm. Because this is not a
standard_error, it would seem that using a standard_error standard_name
modifier would be misleading. Any thoughts on how to represent this
product-specific error in the NetCDF file ? (The best idead I could come up
with so far is to establish an ancillary data relationwhip between the wind
speed/direction variables and the error variable, and use the error
variable's long_name to describe the error) very respectfully, randy
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
----- End forwarded message -----
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
--
*******************************************************
* Nan Galbraith (508) 289-2444 *
* Upper Ocean Processes Group Mail Stop 29 *
* Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution *
* Woods Hole, MA 02543 *
*******************************************************
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
