hi michael
1) There are a few typos (see attached) that made it invalid NcML. also
".ncml" suffix is preferred over ".xml"
2) for cdm_data_type, i might not call this a grid, maybe "image" is
better. the satellite group should probably come up with a feature type
name for geostationary data.
3
_
From: Carlomusto, Michael
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 5:20 PM
To: 'CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu'
Subject: GOES-R metadata prototype
The attached NcML file has been vetted by a small group of people from the CF
metadata list, especially with regard
Hi all,
I would like to point out the following 3 tickets I have created in
trac, regarding Projections and WKT (Well-Known Text) representation.
The first two have been created 1 month ago and there has been almost
no responses.
1) fix documentation and definitions of 3 grid mapping definitions
Dear Martin,
thanks for the hint with the definition term! I would therefore like to propose
to name and define the discussed variable:
"volume_scattering_coefficient_in_air_due_to_ambient_aerosol_assuming_mie_scattering"
The volume scattering coefficient is the fractional change of radiative f
I'm very pleased to see this discussion taking place!
The issue of emissions height is important. In many cases there is insufficient
data to clarify this, so it's rather ambiguous (some IND emissions will be low,
some will be high stacks). So we need to be careful not to imply precision that
d
Dear all,
since the WMO Global Atmosphere Watch (GAW) programme is moving towards using
CF standard names as standard vocabulary, I'd like to propose a few standard
names that represent aerosol properties being observed at the GAW surface
sites. Since there seem to be various opinions about the
Dear Heiko,
you are of course right that this cannot be the end of it. Yet, I think it
is very important to get these standard names into the list soon, because there
are already large data sets with these categories (the "ACCMIP" emissions
produced for chemistry calculations to support IP
Dear Markus,
good to hear that you are taking this up as a GAW initiative. Personally I
wouldn't have a problem with your suggestion, but I'd like to refer this
discussion to the more aerosol-oriented community. Small change (lowercase
"mie"). Hence your name would read
"volume_scattering_
Dear Martin,
thanks for filling me in on the background of this discussion! This must have
happened before I joined the mailing list, and I do need to admit it's a hassle
to read through the whole archive.
I do see your point, i.e. that you describe a modelled variable, but I still
think it is
Dear Markus,
thanks for the thoughtful response. I cc this to Uma Shankar who had
sent me the RSIG (http://badger.epa.gov/rsig/) CMAQ variable list from where
this suggestion originated. CMAQ is of course a model. I don't think it would
hurt to have also standard_names for pure model qua
Dear Alison (cc Hugo, Steve, Greg),
> Looking back to the original proposal,
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/2011/027071.html, you
> have provided definitions of the emissions sectors in terms of 2006 IPCC
> source categories. I have found the following document: http://www.ipc
Dear Heiko,
In response to your point about trac, the current practice is to for standard
names proposals to be made on the mailing list and discussed here. The trac
system is used to discuss proposals for changes to the conventions document.
Thank you for your comments about the sectors. I am
Hi Martin,
I guess you are referring to your emails from
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/2011/027072.html .
I agree that the CF-standard names haven't been updated in quite a while
(since July?).
But it seems like there are still some open issues concerning the
sectors. I t
Dear Martin,
Regarding the emission names, I note the supporting emails from Greg Frost and
Steve Smith and I think there is no question that we want to be able to
represent these quantities within CF. The only concern is to ensure that the
names themselves are unambiguous and consistent with e
Dear all,
please excuse if I come in late into this discussion, but I would like to make
a few comments about the proposed variable name
"volume_extinction_coefficient_in_air_due_to_mie_scattering_of_ambient_aerosol"
As it is written above, the name is self-contradicting. The aerosol extinction
Dear Martin,
The table has not been updated since July 2011 which is why your names are not
published at the moment. I had planned to do an update in December but had some
technical problems which caused the vocab editor to keep crashing. These are
fixed now and I agree that an update is well o
16 matches
Mail list logo
