Jonathan, Kevin,
I don't think that it is necessary to further qualify "burned_area". If you
do an internet search for this term you always come up with hits related to
"wildfire" which would suggest that there is little ambiguity in this term. I
propose to add the vegetation fire relations
I added Ticket 62 to my to-do list for CF 1.6. This is a bit unusual
in that the ticket has no moderator. So if there are no objections,
I'll close the ticket and implement the wording which Jonathan proposed
on the Trac system on 12/23/10.
I was wrong when I said there were examples witho
I'll include Ticket 62 with CF-1.6.
The Chapter 9 examples are Appendix H, now available in the public draft
of CF 1.6. At the moment I don't remember what's in them!
- Jeff
On 7/26/11 2:13 PM, Chris Paver wrote:
Hey John,
Thanks for the info. Jonathan Gregory stated that this fix would rol
Hey John,
Thanks for the info. Jonathan Gregory stated that this fix would roll out with
CF-1.6; is that still correct?
What will the Chapter 9 examples look like then? Will any requirements based on
feature types be addressed for the axis attribute?
Thanks,
Chris
On 07/25/2011 12:51 PM,
A couple of quick comments following on from Jonathan's post.
(1) I know of at least 6 pre-TEOS-10 expressions for density used in models,
with authors like
Fofonoff & Millard,
Cox,
Wright,
Jackett & McDougall,
McDougall et al.
Jackett e
Dear Alison
Re: land_ice_surface_specific_mass_balance_flux (kg m-2 s-1)
"When entering the third name into the vocabulary editor I noticed that it is
very similar to an existing name land_ice_surface_specific_mass_balance (m
s-1). The definition of the existing name says "Specific mass balance m
Dear all
I understand the need to be clear, with new standard names, which observational
quantity is being collected in future. I do not agree, however, that we should
make the plain "salinity" name an alias for something more precise. This is
partly because that might change the meaning of existi
Hi Trevor,
As one who has worked in a data centre for a long time I can tell you that the
transition to Practical Salinity was nowhere near as clean as you imply. The
1978 Equations of State weren't published by UNESCO until 1982 or 1983 and it
took some people a long while to latch on (I reme
Dear all
For datasets which are intended for analysis by end-users I think it would be
undesirable to remove the requirement of providing explicit lat and lon
coords even if a grid_mapping is provided. I think it is unrealistic to expect
all software which someone might use to analyse netCDF files
Hello Jonathon,
The use of the word "preformed" in "Preformed Salinity" is the same use as in
"preformed nitrate", NO, and "preformed phosphate" PO. The idea is to recover
the conservative variable that would be present if there were no
biogeochemistry. The methods that we use probably sub
Dear Kevin
burned_area and burned_area_fraction would be OK as standard names, I think,
but I would tend to agree with your suggestion that vegetation could also be
mentioned somehow, in order to make the standard_name more self-explanatory
when in the context of a dataset that might contain many
Dear Glenn
I too agree with your interpretation. COARDS and CF disallow degree for lat
and lon, but degree is allowed for some other quantities in the standard name
table e.g. grid_latitude and grid_longitude (for a rotated-pole system) have
units of degree.
I agree with Roy that quantities which
Dear Chris, Jeff, Steve, John
> > > It seems to me that z in the examples of Appendix H (formerly
> > > designated A9) plays the role of an auxiliary coordinate variable,
> > > although technically it's not because there isn't (but should be) a
> > > 'coordinates' attribute which lists auxiliary c
Dear Glenn
The positive attribute hasn't been extended to data variables in CF because
the standard name always implies the sign convention e.g.
toa_net_downward_longwave_flux
toa_net_upward_shortwave_flux
The advantage of doing it is this way is that it is impossible for the sign
convention t
Dear all
I agree with Roy in his remark that "the existing salinity Standard Name is a
much broader term than the TEOS-10 recommendations".
In some datasets, it may not be well-defined precisely which "kind" of salinity
we have. This is particularly the case for model datasets, since most ocean
mo
Hi Chris:
I think we agreed that this sentence in section 5 should be removed:
The|axis|attribute is not allowed for auxiliary coordinate variables.
If anyone has a better idea, let me know. otherwise i will submit a
defect change.
John
On 7/20/2011 7:51 AM, Chris Paver wrote:
Dear list,
Hello Nan,
You make an excellent point. The version number of the software than
converts Practical Salinity to Absolute Salinity should be included as
metadata. The present version number of the GSW software is version 3.0. The
TEOS-10 Manual says that oceanographers should state the vers
Dear Jonathan,
Back in February you proposed three new names for ice sheet mass balance:
>
> surface_snow_and_ice_melt_flux (kg m-2 s-1): the mass flux of melting
> at the
> surface
>
> surface_snow_and_ice_refreezing_flux (kg m-2 s-1): the mass flux of
> surface
> meltwater which refreezes wit
Thank you, Roy, especially for reminding us of the recommendation
that data centers store practical salinity. We are following that
recommendation in the oceansites project, as is every other
project that keeps observational data - as far as I know.
S_P is closer to the measured variables (C,T,
Two replies follow, first to Karl Taylor, then to Roy Lowrie.
Hello Karl,
(1) "potential temperature" is what it always was, namely the temperature
of a seawater parcel after an adiabatic and isohaline change of pressure to p =
0 dbar.
(2) "Conservative Temperature" is proportional to
20 matches
Mail list logo
