Hi.
The issue you are raising regarding coordinate systems and the grid_mapping
attribute is something I have been wondering about lately. Doesn't the
grid_mapping attribute more properly reside on the coordinate (or auxiliary
coordinate) variable? Strictly speaking, the data values don't hav
Hi.
I'd like to propose the new standard name "snow_cover_binary_mask". There is a
NOAA snow coverage extent product that is being put into netCDF format. The
product is derived from the IMS Daily Northern Hemisphere Snow & Ice Analysis.
It is a grid in which cells are marked as snow-covered
Dear Randy
I agree with what you write. You could list the alternative sets of three
coordinates each all as auxiliary coord vars, and distinguish them with
standard_names; presumably you would want to propose some new standard_names.
That would be fine and quite simple to do.
In addition, you co
Dear Jim
> I'd like to propose the new standard name "snow_cover_binary_mask". There is
> a NOAA snow coverage extent product that is being put into netCDF format.
> The product is derived from the IMS Daily Northern Hemisphere Snow & Ice
> Analysis. It is a grid in which cells are marked as
Hei,
Wouldn't that feature come in handy for other grids as well where we would like
to mark sth. like "exposed" or "not exposed"? So I would suggest to make it
snow independent.
Regards,
Ute
Am 05.09.2012 um 18:31 schrieb "Jim Biard"
mailto:jim.bi...@noaa.gov>>:
Hi.
I'd like to propose the
Hi.
The new grid_mapping scheme looks great! It accomplishes, in a more backward
compatible way, most of the things that I was suggesting.
Regarding Jonathan's reply to my previous comment:
If I read a temperature using a thermometer, the value does not have a
geographic coordinate system asso
Jonathan,
That sounds great! I was thinking there needed to be some way to capture the
42% figure.
So, to sum up, the standard name and definition would be:
surface_snow_cover_binary_mask: The value is 1 where the snow cover area
fraction is greater than a threshold, and 0 elsewhere. The thre
Dear All,
It's becoming clear that we need a Standard Name component to cover boolean
values whose trigger point may then be specified elsewhere as Jonathan stated.
In the biological domain, the syntax 'presence_of_x' where x is a taxon name is
often used. Could this be adopted giving the Sta
Suggestion 'presence_of_surface_snow' should have been
'presence_of_surface_snow_cover' to maintain consistency
From: CF-metadata [cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Lowry, Roy K.
[r...@bodc.ac.uk]
Sent: 05 September 2012 19:49
To: Ute Brö
Ute,
It is a good concept. As best as I understand it (I'm still learning), the
existing grammar for standard names doesn't allow a qualifier of this sort.
Qualifiers are not allowed to change the units of a quantity, for one thing,
and a binary mask qualifier doesn't fit into any of the exis
10 matches
Mail list logo
