u
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] GOES-R generated binary mask products under
> proposal
>
> Dear Jonathan and Jim,
>
> I have seen your last and recent words on the mask proposals, and I
> have incorporated your comments. I believe we are all in agreement,
> and thank
Charles,The definitions also need specifications of how to indicate a threshold if one is used. The text for the surface_snow_binary_mask is:The threshold must be specified by associating a coordinate variable or
scalar coordinate variable with the data variable and giving the
coordinate variabl
Dear Jonathan and Jim,
I have seen your last and recent words on the mask proposals, and I have
incorporated your comments. I believe we are all in agreement, and
thank you for your work. I have written out the proposed variables and
definitions below according to our latest agreement. Plea
Hi.That sounds like a great approach. That way it allows the freedom to specify a threshold or not.Grace and peace,Jim
Jim BiardResearch ScholarCooperative Institute for Climate and SatellitesRemote Sensing and Applications DivisionNational Climatic Data Center151 Patton Ave, Asheville, NC 28801-5
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
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
s and which should be labelled as comparable.
Best wishes
Jonathan
- Forwarded message from Charles Paxson <mailto:cpax...@aer.com>> -
Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 15:34:02 -0400
From: Charles Paxson mailto:cpax...@aer.com>>
To: CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu <mailto:CF-metadata@cgd.u
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
rwarded message from Charles Paxson -
Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 15:34:02 -0400
From: Charles Paxson
To: CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: [CF-metadata] GOES-R generated binary mask products under proposal
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.28)
Gecko/
ded message from Charles Paxson -
> Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 15:34:02 -0400
> From: Charles Paxson
> To: CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: [CF-metadata] GOES-R generated binary mask products under proposal
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1
Dear Jim,
I believe attempting to produce one number and regard it as a threshold
could lead to oversimplification and ultimately may create confidence
where judgment and experience need to be applied. Please consider the
GOES-R cloud mask with which I am most familiar. The cloud mask is
pr
There may be a complex algorithm underlying the binary state to be represented by these standard names, but there clearly is a threshold for each binary state. There is some level of each constituent for which the corresponding algorithm will produce zeros. It seems to me that it would better to
a [cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] on behalf of Charles
Paxson [cpax...@aer.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 9:34 PM
To: CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: [CF-metadata] GOES-R generated binary mask products under proposal
Dear CF Metadata Users Group,
Through observations and analysis, G
Dear CF Metadata Users Group,
Through observations and analysis, GOES-R weather products produce
binary masks for: aerosols, smoke, dust and clouds. No coordinate
value is warranted (i.e. CF Metadata standard surface_snow_binary_mask)
for any of these four proposed quantities, since a comple
14 matches
Mail list logo
