Sorry for the delay. Here is a new and simplified proposal for zero and
negative year numbers in time coordinates. I think this represents a consensus
of the current discussion. I avoided several side issues that were discussed,
but are not directly relevant.
* For the current `standard`
One more point ... working from sigma(k) encoded in the file would set the
scene to use ocean_s_coordinate or ocean_s_coordinate_g1 (g2) over z coordinate
with minimal added hassle.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on
We need auxiliary information for sigma(k) to make the definition generic.
Something like this ... check my math and whther it's < or <=
If k numbers from top to bottom then (left side of diagram attached)
for 1 < k <= Nsigmawe have sigma(k) = -k/Nsigma
Dear @johnwilkin
Thanks for you comment. Yes, that's good point. I think it's a separate
problem, but I agree the text should be reworded to avoid the implicit
numbering convention. In fact I don't think the numbering needs to be stated at
all. It could just describe the treatment of the sigma
I agree. It's o.k.
Thanks.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/304#issuecomment-789802835
This list forwards relevant notifications from Github. It is
I think there is a problem here with an implicit assumption about the numbering
convention for whether k=N is the surface or the bottom. In
ocean_sigma_coordinate is does not matter if a user numbers from the surface
sigma(1) = 0 to bottom sigma(N) = -1, or as in the ROMS model for example
# Title
Correction to the definition of "ocean sigma over z coordinate" in Appendix D
# Moderator
None yet
# Moderator Status Review [last updated: -MM-DD]
None yet
# Technical Proposal Summary
The convention for this parametric vertical coordinate appears to be defective
in its design.
Yes, I think it's OK, thanks.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/304#issuecomment-789735455
This list forwards relevant notifications from Github. It is
Hello,
Are we OK to merge this PR, do you think? The proposed changes in #305 come
from a dimensional analysis resulting from writing software can create the
non-parametric vertical coordinates from formula terms. We've not heard about
about any checks on the correctness of the formulae
