Hi,
As Tony indicated, the ESMF Team also supports this proposal to make
the CF default/standard Gregorian calendar proleptic. Like CCSM, our
Gregorian calendar is proleptic, and, also like CCSM, we do not
support a mixed Julian/Gregorian historical calendar, as we've had
no such requirement t
Dear Steve et al.
Yes, it is a choice about complexity vs efficiency of space. Using an
indirection to point to t means that you don't have to make the trajectories
all exist at all times. It takes very little more space: instead of the t(o)
in the usual trajectory feature, you have tindex(o), and
P.S. I neglected the obvious further simplification: replace "t(o)"
with "t(t)". Time becomes a simple netCDF coordinate variable in the
synchronized representation of trajectories. Similar for synchronized
profiles and time series.
===
On 10/13/2010 10:39 AM, St
Hi All,
2 cents: Since this is a new twist on previously discussed feature
types, the tires of alternative approaches probably deserve to be
kicked. What's special about this use case is that the trajectories are
all synchronized in time. (Though with differing start/stop times.)
Analogo
Dear Rich
> With the approach you suggest, if you wanted to obtain all the
> particle positions at a particular time step, would you need to read
> all tindex for all particles? (I'm a little fuzzy on what the CDL
> would look like...)
No, I don't think so. Either of John's proposed packing mech
Jonathan,
>> Typical producers of this kind of data are numerical particle tracking
>> models. These codes step through time, following the (x,y,t) or
>> (x,y,z,t) trajectories of individual particles. At each time step,
>> more particles may be introduced to be tracked, while other particles
>>
Dear Rich
Thanks for this explanation:
> Typical producers of this kind of data are numerical particle tracking
> models. These codes step through time, following the (x,y,t) or
> (x,y,z,t) trajectories of individual particles. At each time step,
> more particles may be introduced to be tracked
Hei folkens,
Thanks for pointing that out for me. This is exactly what I need.
Regards,
Ute
Ute Brönner
www.sintef.com/marine_environment
Consider the environment before printing
-Original Message-
From: rsign...@gmail.com [mailto:rsign...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Rich Signell
Sent: M
Folks,
> 2. I think trajectory is when you follow a set of "things", boats, a person.
> But at each time step they are identical, maybe not the same number because
> of missing data. I could assume that I have a trajectory but actually I can't
> be sure if my particles are the same as before. T
Dear Andrew
> Yes, but depends on the community (list) accepting the idea of having a
Good. I think we are agreed then to propose these new cell methods:
root_mean_square
mean_of_upper_decile
and these new standard names:
sea_surface_wave_height
sea_surface_wave_mean_crest_period
sea_surface_
Hello Andrew and Jonathan,
First, I think this discussion is heading towards reasonable compromise
avoiding my concerns of a massive proliferation in cell methods and the pitfall
of concepts that are explainable in the context of their parameter, but
meaningless in isolation (e.g. explaining mo
11 matches
Mail list logo
