Jonathan,
Thanks for the "all leap" idea! Should I note the reduced statistics for
Feb 29 in comments, or do you think that is pretty much understood?
Speaking of that, what are your thoughts on including standard errors or
standard deviations of the climatology values?
Grace and peace,
Jim
On 6/3/14, 4:54 AM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
Dear Jim and Seth
I agree that option 1 of sect 7.4 is the right one for this case i.e. time:
mean within years time: mean within years. That describes what you have done.
Within each year, you make a mean over (for instance) Jan 1 0000 to Jan 2 0000.
Then you have a mean over years of these daily means.
I agree you could encode time with the noleap/365_day calendar if you don't
want to provide a 29 Feb climatological mean; if you do want to provide one,
you could code the time with the all_leap/366_day calendar. It's just an
encoding really, and doesn't imply anything about the original data; when
forming a climatological mean for the real world you are inevitably making
some compromises with the precision of the calendar.
Cheers
Jonathan
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
--
CICS-NC <http://www.cicsnc.org/> Visit us on
Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/cicsnc> *Jim Biard*
*Research Scholar*
Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites NC <http://cicsnc.org/>
North Carolina State University <http://ncsu.edu/>
NOAA's National Climatic Data Center <http://ncdc.noaa.gov/>
151 Patton Ave, Asheville, NC 28801
e: [email protected]
o: +1 828 271 4900
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
