Jonathan,
I'm fine with this. Thanks.
Karl
Jonathan Gregory wrote:
>
> Dear Karl
>
> > I have forgotten whether we decided on a recommended way to define
> > the base time for a control run of a coupled model that is supposed
> > to be roughly present day, but where individual years are not
> > expected to correspond with real years.
> >
> > One reason they are not expected to correspond is that in the
> > real world the forcing (greenhouse gases, for example) are
> > changing whereas in the model they are held constant.
>
> I don't think we decided a convention for this. We have a convention for
> perpetual-July etc. integrations.
>
> To be honest, I don't think we can really define a convention. People have
> already used lots of different conventions in their data. This is on a
> "scientific" level rather than a metadata-definition level.
>
> Cheers
>
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Received on Mon Feb 10 2003 - 09:55:34 GMT
