Hi Dave, > The problem here is that there is no analysis that does not > require this information. While some choose to assume that > all data uses the same datum and drop those terms of analysis > out of their math, that does not mean the information is not there. > > Having personally been in this situation, it took me two > years to track down exactly the right geographic > transformation to apply to accurately apply radar data to the > landscape. It is unfair to expect that a terrestrial modeler > understand the handling of geographic data in climate and > forecasting applications to such an extent that they are > comfortable making such a decision.
I wasn't for one minute suggesting that geodetic datum (or any other) information shouldn't be provided, assuming it's known. As the author of the last significant batch of CRS-related updates to the CF specification, I'd have no reason to want it otherwise! I was merely opining that specifying a CF default datum doesn't necessarily help to solve the underlying problem. > Your argument about darwinian evolution of data use would > cause a massive set back in interdisciplinary science. Crikey, I'd hate to think that I was single-handedly responsible for causing a massive setback to interdisciplinary research. That nice Mr Gore would be breathing down my neck before you could say 'international debt crisis' :-) On the basis that, to date, the global community has done plenty of good interdisciplinary research - often without knowing the arcana of geodetic datums - then I think we can have good reason to believe that this will continue. Regards, Phil _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
