In the CF-1.6 and CF-1.7 draft doc, in section H.2, we have:
It is recommended that there should be station variables with
standard_name attributes platform_name , surface_altitude and “
platform_id ” when applicable.
Why is this surface_altitude instead of platform_altitude?
In the ocean,
Hi all,
Clearly there are pros and cons of both options. However after some discussion
with colleagues here we decided that we'd go with the option of requesting a
new standard name. I'd therefore like to request:
Hi all,
Following the various discussions in this thread I would like to request the
following new standard name:
precipitation_amount_converted_to_cumulative_probability
With the following definition:
Amount means mass per unit area. A variable whose standard name has the form
Interesting that there is so little discussion of this language in the mail
list, only in John Caron's 2011.09.16 mail on standard names for stations
(which refers to words already in draft 1.6, I think) -- which came at the tail
end of a long thread on platform names/IDs.
From those words, I
Both these questions are about the boilerplate text, everything else seemed
fine to me.
In the sentence below, there is a typo the a.
It must have a coordinate variable or scalar coordinate variable with the a
standard name of X to supply the threshold(s).
And in use, do I understand
Maybe a simpler approach would be to just adopt platform_altitude as
an alias for surface_altitude and suggest deprecating the use of
surface_altitude?
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:15 AM, John Graybeal
john.grayb...@marinexplore.com wrote:
Interesting that there is so little discussion of this
On 2014-09-09 Jonathan Gregory j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk commented:
You are right regarding the calculation - we are using a statistical model
of the relationship between monthly rainfall and return period that was
developed many years ago by a colleague from an analysis of 60 years
of
I assume surface_altitude is an important variable for providing the vertical
location of measurements relative to a surface (as opposed to relative to a
geoid -- notwithstanding the definition issue).
John
On Sep 18, 2014, at 08:30, Signell, Richard rsign...@usgs.gov wrote:
Maybe a simpler
John,
So then the surface needs to be defined relative to some known datum, no?
Maybe we need platform_altitude_above_datum and a specification of
the vertical datum (EPSG:5701 (MSL), EPSG:5703 (NAVD88), etc)
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 1:47 PM, John Graybeal
john.grayb...@marinexplore.com wrote:
As I recall, the original proposal was for station_altitude. We decided to
change station to platform. At the same time it was thought that the
existing standard name of surface altitude would be synonymous. I at
least was thinking of ground stations. So I think we make a mistake there
and
Hi Damien,
thanks for taking the initiative on behalf of IGAS!
I was looking through your list of proposed standard names and compared it to
those I had proposed earlier as an initiative of the WMO GAW Scientific Advisory
Group for Aerosol. Due to the process of iterating this list of names
11 matches
Mail list logo
