CF conventions. Hope
this will help..
Best wishes
Olivier.
-Message d'origine-
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de Ethan Davis
Envoyé : mardi 30 septembre 2008 06:44
À : Philip Bentley
Cc : cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Objet : Re: [CF-metadata] fixed sensors
Dear Ethan
I agree that different definitions of the reference ellipsoid do not constitute
different geophysical quantities. Likewise different definitions of the geoid
all give the same geophysical quantity. Therefore I agree that the geoid should
be identified as part of the CRS (naming it in
Hi Jonathan,
I would argue against them being different quantities because there
exist transformations between these various heights. Is that not enough
to indicate they are the same quantity?
Ethan
Jonathan Gregory wrote:
Dear Jon
- height relative to the ellipsoid
- height relative
Dear all
Referring to Dale's list of requirements, this is my understanding of where
we are:
- height relative to the ellipsoid
- height relative to the geoid
Olivier pointed out we have already agreed to add
height_above_reference_ellipsoid, and Dale reminded us that height relative
to the
Good afternoon,
The CeNCOOS Bays group is developing a netCDF standard for our water
monitoring instruments. We've receive some fantastic help from John
Graybeal and the folks at MMI. We are to a point where we have a
couple of questions that are stumping us. I was hoping the CF group
could
