On 3/31/11 10:18 AM, Seth McGinnis wrote:
For those who have never encountered a non-standard calendar in the wild,
here's one place they show up:
Thanks for the clarification.
I draw the following conclusions:
1) converting between Calendars is ripe for error/mis-interpretation,
and probabl
Hi Steve,
I am happy you found our work useful. You raised very good discussion
points !
Presently, we are working to include CF ver.1.5 in the diagram and,
hence, in the clauses. Indeed, any comment and/or contribution is very
welcome.
Thanks,
Stefano
On 4/2/2011 2:03 AM, Stefano Nat
Martin,
On 04/04/2011 09:37 AM, Schultz, Martin wrote:
>if this is the direction to take, then we will need several "expressed_as"
> standard_names for atmospheric chemistry. Typical example: volatile organic
> compounds are often "expressed as" mass mixing ratio based on either their
> mol
Dear all,
> Jonathan wrote:
> I don't really agree with this. Units are units, not
> descriptins of quantities.
> grams of CO2 per grams of air is a mass mixing ratio and is
> dimensionless.
> [...]
> Steve wrote:
> The National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST)
> agrees that information
On 4/2/2011 2:03 AM, Stefano Nativi wrote:
Hi Upendra,
My plane was delayed ...
Please, find attached the draft CF-netCDF data model specification
that Ben and I are developing for the OGC.
In this version of the specification, the CF conventions are still
version 1.1. However, I have bee
