ationship between latitude and relative
> longitude on the Earth and the projection coordinates are (for the case of
> coordinate axis orientated E/W):
>
> cos(lat) * sin(lon) = r1 * sin( y );
>
> sin(lat) = r1 * cos(y) * sin(x);
>
> where r1 is a solution of
coordinate axis orientated E/W):
>
> cos(lat) * sin(lon) = r1 * sin( y );
>
> sin(lat) = r1 * cos(y) * sin(x);
>
> where r1 is a solution of the quadratic:
>
> r1*r1 - 2*Rs*r1*cos(x)*cos(y) + Rs*Rs -1 = 0.
>
>
>
>
> __
du> on behalf of Martin Juckes
- UKRI STFC <martin.juc...@stfc.ac.uk>
Sent: 20 April 2018 17:07
To: Randy Horne; Daniel Lee
Cc: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Fix Geostationary projection, including proposal for
two new standard names
Hello Randy,
the sweep_angle_
angle, projection_azimuthal_angle would
>> be better?
>>
>>
>> The calculation would indeed be complicated, as has already been
>> emphasized below, but I think it is worth going back to the fundamentals
>> here, and stating the underlying assumptions behind the coordinate system.
in (STFC,RAL,RALSP); Randy Horne
Cc: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: RE: [CF-metadata] Fix Geostationary projection, including proposal for
two new standard names
Hi Martin,
Yes, you need both coordinates in order to find the position viewed on the
Earth's surface - it's not a simple distan
le would
>> be better?
>>
>>
>> The calculation would indeed be complicated, as has already been
>> emphasized below, but I think it is worth going back to the fundamentals
>> here, and stating the underlying assumptions behind the coordinate system.
>> E.g. the fact that it is defined relative to
in Juckes - UKRI STFC
> Sent: 20 April 2018 15:41
> To: Randy Horne <rho...@excaliburlabs.com>
> Cc: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Fix Geostationary projection, including proposal
> for two new standard names
>
> Hello Randy,
>
>
>
Re: [CF-metadata] Fix Geostationary projection, including proposal for
two new standard names
Hi Martin:
RE: I agree with Jim that a little more basic information is needed about what
the angles are. I may be misinterpreting the discussion, but I had imagined
that the angles as components of a spheric
: Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC <martin.juc...@stfc.ac.uk>
> Cc: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Fix Geostationary projection, including proposal
> for two new standard names
>
> Hi Martin:
>
> RE: I agree with Jim that a little more basic information is
Hi Martin:
RE: I agree with Jim that a little more basic information is needed about what
the angles are. I may be misinterpreting the discussion, but I had imagined
that the angles as components of a spherical coordinate system centred on the
satellite, with the nadir at (0,0) ... is that
ar.edu] On Behalf Of Jim
Biard
Sent: 19 April 2018 15:32
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu>
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Fix Geostationary projection, including proposal for
two new standard names
Hi.
Here's a couple of thoughts.
The definition that Ethan has propo
From: CF-metadata <cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu> on behalf of Jim Biard
<jbi...@cicsnc.org>
Sent: 19 April 2018 16:35
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Fix Geostationary projection, including proposal for
two new standard names
Daniel,
My
.@cgd.ucar.edu]*On
Behalf Of*Jim Biard
*Sent:*19 April 2018 15:32
*To:*cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu <mailto:cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu>
*Subject:*Re: [CF-metadata] Fix Geostationary projection, including
proposal for two new standard names
Hi.
Here's a couple of thoughts.
The definitio
om: Ethan Davis <eda...@ucar.edu>
> To: CF metadata <cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu>
> Subject: [CF-metadata] Fix Geostationary projection, including proposal for
> two new standard names
>
> Hi all,
>
> Here's an initial proposal for fixing the geostati
CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu
> <mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu>] On Behalf Of Jim Biard
> Sent: 19 April 2018 15:32
> To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu <mailto:cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu>
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Fix Geostationary proj
Biard
Sent: 19 April 2018 15:32
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Fix Geostationary projection, including proposal for
two new standard names
Hi.
Here's a couple of thoughts.
The definition that Ethan has proposed fails to note that the angles are with
respect to a
he specs will freeze.
Best regards,
Daniel
*From:*CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] *On
Behalf Of *Ethan Davis
*Sent:* 19 April 2018 05:40
*To:* CF metadata <cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu>
*Subject:* [CF-metadata] Fix Geostationary projection, including
proposal for two n
AM
To: Ethan Davis <eda...@ucar.edu>; CF metadata <cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu>
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Fix Geostationary projection, including proposal for
two new standard names
Hi Ethan,
At first blush this looks pretty good. If we can agree on this in a short-ish
time fra
:40
To: CF metadata <cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu>
Subject: [CF-metadata] Fix Geostationary projection, including proposal for two
new standard names
Hi all,
Here's an initial proposal for fixing the geostationary projection as we've
been discussing.
Two new standard names:
19 matches
Mail list logo
