Dear John
It seems to me it would be better to somehow denote the epoch
seperately, because its kind of silly keeping track of # millisecs
between two dates separated by 50 million years. plus its hard.
what about:
01-01-01 12:00 epoch 50m BCE
where the epoch 50m BCE is probably just
On 8/24/2011 6:23 AM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
Dear John
It seems to me it would be better to somehow denote the epoch
seperately, because its kind of silly keeping track of # millisecs
between two dates separated by 50 million years. plus its hard.
what about:
01-01-01 12:00 epoch 50m BCE
I've got a question and a thought to stir the pot with.
Is there any problem with having negative values for the dates, or are
we talking about having only positive and increasing values?
It seems that providing a way to specify the base unit of time would be
helpful from a conceptual
Dear John
since im going to propose some grammar that we will be stuck with
for the next 50m years ...
:-)
We've talking about the syntax which describes the reference date now, is
that right? That is, the complete syntax is
N [calendar] UNITS since DATE
and we have so far said that it's not a
John and Jonathan-
On 8/24/11 9:23 AM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
So now we are taking about the N calendar UNITS part, when that part means
a large number of years. I think this format:
50 calendar Myears since 1980-01-01
is the best one. The word calendar is useful to make clear it is not
The draft version 1.6 of the CF Conventions manual recommends use of two
standard names which don't exist yet but are needed to describe discrete
data such as observations from stations or other discrete points. So
I'd like to propose the following two standard names:
- station_description :
