Hi,
The domain cf-pcmdi9.llnl.gov has been unreachable since at least yesterday.
We are currently relying on this site for access to the official CF
specification. Can anyone report on when this site will be back and where we
can get a copy of the latest CF document in the mean time.
Hi,
Please ignore my last email. I have an incorrect URL in my browser cache and
have now found the correct URL of cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov.
Cheers,
Stephen.
---
Stephen Pascoe +44 (0)1235 445980
Centre of Environmental Data Archival
STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Harwell Oxford, Didcot OX11
Valerie:
Your suggestions look good to me
Kris
=
Kristopher Bedka
Senior Research Scientist
Science Systems Applications, Inc. @ NASA Langley Research Center
Climate Science Branch
1 Enterprise Parkway, Suite 200
Hampton, VA 23666
Primary
Dear Jim
I think the same as Karl. The reason is that I regard height above geoid and
height above reference ellipsoid as different geophysical quantities, as are
height above bedrock (the example I gave in an earlier email, to Rich) and
height (in the sense of the CF standard_name table i.e.
Dear Kris
We thought the cloud radiative center terminology was more descriptive, but
not as widely used as effective.
I agree with that. Cloud radiative center is fine. Since I don't know this
subject, my question was just to make sure that it is a term that is in common
use (even if not very
height_at is fine by me which matches a greater number of the examples
you provide. Since I haven't heard any major disagreements with my
proposal, what's the next step for getting these names approved by The
Grand Council of Naming?
=
Dear Kris
The procedure is that discussion continues until there is no disagreement.
Subsequently Alison Pamment, the manager of standard names, will incorporate
the new ones in a revised version of the standard name table.
Cheers
Jonathan
- Forwarded message from Bedka, Kristopher M.
Hi all,
I agree with Jim on this. The grid_mapping, rather than the standard
name, is the appropriate place for this information. Just as it is for
latitude and longitude (and X and Y). We don't have latitude-wgs84
or latitude-airy-1830.
Ethan
On 2/11/2014 11:51 AM, Jim Biard wrote:
Karl,
Both geoids and reference ellipsoids are vertical datums used as the
reference from which measurements can be made. I'm not sure I see how
that makes those measurements different geophysical quantities.
I can see how lat/lon and X/Y are different. Similarly, height and
pressure levels are
Dear Ethan, Balaji et al.
No-one is suggesting having different standard names for different geoids or
different reference ellipsoids, as far as I know. We agree that the identity of
the geoid etc. belongs in the grid mapping. The distinction of standard names
is for different geophysical
Ok, fair enough. I understand it's blurry, and I suppose all I'm
arguing for is some general vigilance against proliferation of
names. You understand as well as anyone the need to be very very
precise in defining sea level rise, and I'll defer to your judgment
on this matter. (BTW when are we
It's obvious even to this non-expert that different reference surfaces
yield different heights, but I fail to see how they are different
sorts of height. Though I'm happy to stand corrected on that.
But for another reason I would like to take a contrary position here:
I don't believe the
Hi Kris,
Try to pick a name that matches what the algorithm retrieves.
What you have described seems much closer to an effective cloud top
height for 11 um photons. So first I would replace the word center
with something like top.
As you note, satellites traditionally use IR techniques to
On Feb 12, 2014, at 21:31, Charlie Zender zen...@uci.edu wrote:
I think that the name should encode the method if the result is sensitive to
the method.
Here there be dragons. Can it be said that this is not a different measurement
of the same thing, but a measurement of a different
14 matches
Mail list logo
