Hi Jonathan (Wrotny),
I am not sure if my last email got through. Is it possible to define the
vertical extent of 'surface' better? Eg, do you mean the bottom 1cm, 10m, 1km,
mixed layer?
We might not want to be too precise, so as to allow wiggle room for other ways
of generating the lifted ind
Jim,
thanks for your explanation!
> If there are
> dimensions or coordinate variables that are common to data variables
> that have been placed in different groups, they could be reasonably be
> placed at a common level above the groups (such as the root).
> Dimensions declared in a group (inclu
Many thanks to Dave Allured for pointing out my oversight in
yesterdays' summary - Ticket #86 (Allow coordinate variables to have
the "add_offset" and "scale_factor" attributes) is accepted, and not
dormant as I wrote. The summary is:
The summary of CF Metadata Trac tickets has been updated for th
The term 'convenience feature' is mentioned in the conventions document:
'The new scalar coordinate variable is a convenience feature which avoids
adding size one dimensions to variables.'
Data creators have seen the benefits in not encoding size one dimensions and
made use of this feature,
Hi Everyone,After spending 15 minutes reading this and Jonathan's previous post, and trying hard to be sure I really understand them, I am left wondering if a "convenience feature" is really a convenience at all. I know programmers don't like clutter in their code and have certain aesthetic to uph
Charles,I disagree with your assertion that knowledge of the threshold for a binary mask doesn't help an analyst with understanding the data. In the case of the surface_snow_binary_mask, it is most definitely useful to know that a threshold of 20% was used versus a threshold of 60%. If you are tr
Folks:
Am I the only person who is not receiving all cf-metadata messages posted ?
I am wondering if we have an IT issue.
very respectfully,
randy
___
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
http://mailman.cgd.uc
Sometimes I get messages much later than the reply, I think because the
original is awaiting moderator approval on one list but the reply comes through
from someone on both lists who is already approved.
And sometimes a reply goes to an individual who then copies the list on their
reply.
And I
All,
We are attempting to create a valid CF 1.6 discrete sampling geometry
trajectory file to exchange data from underwater profiling gliders. There
is a schematic of the major sampling features for gliders at the following
web site (
https://github.com/IOOSProfilingGliders/Real-Time-File-Format
I'm not aware of anything unusual going on with the mailing list.
As for what happens if you comment directly on a Trac ticket, there
are really two mailing lists. The real list is
cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu. But there's a clone,
cf-metad...@lists.llnl.gov, which is
Dear Mark
As when we have discussed this before, I am certain that when we introduced
scalar coordinate variables, we intended them to mean the same thing as
size-one coordinate variables. Though I do not remember the actual discussions
I am sure that's what we had in mind, and it is quite likely
Jim,
Thank you for your remarks. If one person has questions, it's likely
that others do too, so I welcome your thoughts as we flush these issues
out.
Firstly, we have no disagreement about the usefulness of the snow
threshold in creating a snow mask in the way things are set up. Toward
t
Dear Ken
Your argument is one that we should not have scalar coordinates at all. You
could propose that they should be removed from the next version of CF (and
that would certainly simplify this discussion, if agreed :-). They have been
in there for several years now, and I guess they are quite wi
Charles,That sounds great to me. I appreciate your patience with me.Grace and peace,Jim
Jim BiardResearch ScholarCooperative Institute for Climate and SatellitesRemote Sensing and Applications DivisionNational Climatic Data Center151 Patton Ave, Asheville, NC 28801-5001jim.bi...@noaa.gov828-271-49
Dear Charles
Thank you for your email, and the subsequent one to Jim. In my earlier posting
I was not particularly arguing against the proposal, but I thought the
question should be asked. Evidently it is your intention that quantities with
these names should indeed be regarded as comparable. That
Dear Jon
Thanks for considering my comments on this one
> Standard Name:
> temperature_difference_between_ambient_air_and_surface_air_lifted_adiabatically
I'm glad you're happy with a general name in this case. I am interested in
your response to Philip's question about how surface is defined h
Dear Jon
> I agree with your assessment, and I like your proposed name. My
> only question remains with the definition. It seems like there
> could be two approaches given the specific nature of the product: 1)
> write the definition as below with hard-wired pressure levels part
> of the definit
Sorry, this email went just to Jonathan instead of the list. Stupid computers….
It still appears timely, though.
John
Begin forwarded message:
> From: John Graybeal
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] new standard name: total_totals_index
> Date: May 18, 2013 9:39:27 AM PDT
> To: Jonathan Gregory
>
18 matches
Mail list logo
