Dear Maarten and Martin,
Many thanks for these proposals and apologies for not having responded sooner.
There seems to be full agreement that four of the names are a straight forward
addition to the standard name table.
1. atmosphere_mole_content_of_methane (mol m-2)
' "Content" indicates a
Hi John,
To my thinking your arguments add support for 'biological_taxon_lsid' over
'biological_taxon_identifier' defined as LSID, which Jonathan prefers and I am
starting to feel better about. LSIDs backed by the WoRMS and ITIS taxonomies
cover the biological oceanography use cases known to
Daniel,
My two thoughts were independent. I agree that parametric coordinates
are more abstract, and thus possibly more confusing, than linear
coordinates. But, as Randy pointed out in his reply, the relationship
between the angles and longitude and latitude are quite complex. The
Dear Martin and Michaela
Thanks for your comments. If a non-zero threshold is sometimes used, I think
it's a reasonable future-proofing extension that we might allow it here,
although it's not yet been requested. I don't feel strongly either way. We
could omit that complexity at the moment, but
Dear Ethan
Thanks for taking this up. I think this approach is sensible.
> Perhaps we should include information on when the deprecated feature was in
> effect:
>
> The initial definition for this projection was agreed on in May 2012 though
> it was not in the CF document until 1.7 was released
Folks:
RE: “ Definition: "x" indicates a vector component along the grid x-axis, when
this is not true longitude, positive with increasing x. Angular projection
coordinates are angular distances in the x- and y-directions on a plane onto
which the surface of the Earth has been projected
Hi Jim,
I for one find this more confusing than Ethan's definition, but maybe it's
because I'm too far gone in my discipline to see the scope for misunderstanding.
That being said, if we're being that general my feeling says to me that we may
risk converging on a standard which isn't really
Hi.
Here's a couple of thoughts.
The definition that Ethan has proposed fails to note that the angles are
with respect to a normal to the projection surface at a point along the
normal. I guess the phrase "angular distance" implies this, but my first
read had me feeling confused about what
Ethan,
Thanks for your quick action on this.
Analysis of the GOES-R product definitions is beginning for the change to the
two newly proposed standard names.
As written, the new standard name definitions are fine with us.
Michael Carlomusto
GOES-R Ground System
Harris Corporation, Melbourne, FL
Hi Ethan,
At first blush this looks pretty good. If we can agree on this in a short-ish
time frame, it might be possible for EUMETSAT to publish data exclusively using
these standard names - the planned launch date for MTG I1 is late 2021. This
sounds like it's very far away, but in the space
Dear Jonathan,
those are good points. I've copied Michaela into the discussion as she knows
more about the intended use of this variable.
The generic quantity that AerChemMIP is interested in, Phytotoxic ozone dose,
can be used with a non-zero threshold -- so there may be a requirement for
11 matches
Mail list logo
