Hello Ros, If you have access to JASMIN, the file is at /badc/cmip5/data/cmip5/output1/MIROC/MIROC-ESM/historical/mon/land/Lmon/r1i1p1/latest/landCoverFrac/landCoverFrac_Lmon_MIROC-ESM_historical_r1i1p1_185001-200512.nc. Otherwise, select model=MIROC-ESM, experiment=historical and variable=landCoverFrac in ESGF and you should find it. It is 644Mbytes, so I won't send it as an attachment.
Regards, Martin -----Original Message----- From: Rosalyn Hatcher [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 23 March 2015 14:59 To: Juckes, Martin (STFC,RAL,RALSP) Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] area_type: convention and usage: bringing the checker and convention into line HI Martin, Can you please point me to where I can get hold of this netcdf file? The checker does check against values in the area_type table so I will need to investigate why it's not identifying this in these files. Regards, Ros. On 20 Mar 2015, at 10:09, [email protected] wrote: > Hello, > > I have a question about the specification of area_type in the CF Convention > and its usage in CMIP5 -- motivated by the need to define how it might be > used in CMIP6. > > The convention document appears clear: "Some standard names (e.g. region and > area_type) are used to indicate quantities which are permitted to take only > certain standard values. This is indicated in the definition of the quantity > in the standard name table, accompanied by a list or a link to a list of the > permitted values." (section 3.3) In the case of "area_type", values must be > taken from the area_type table. > > In the CMIP5 variable request, however, the "landCoverFrac" variable is > defined to have a dimension with standard name "area_type" that takes values > corresponding to the model land cover scheme. Consequently, files have been > submitted using terminology chosen by the data providers (e.g. > "Temperate_Evergreen", "Temperate_Deciduous" in > landCoverFrac_Lmon_MIROC-ESM_historical_r1i1p1_185001-200512.nc). Such files > are clearly inconsistent with the convention but they appear to be passed by > the CF checker (http://puma.nerc.ac.uk/cgi-bin/cf-checker.pl ). > > For CMIP6 we want to have compliant files, of course, but in practise we can > only hope to have compliance where there is an automated check. So should we > treat the rule about area_type only taking values from the approved list as a > recommendation, or should the checker and the CMIP request be adjusted to > comply with the existing wording? (Or have I completely misread something?) > > regards, > Martin > > > _______________________________________________ > CF-metadata mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
