Hi Ag, Jonathon
> > Has anyone created or suggested a standard way of encoding errors
> > associated with a particular variable into CF?
>
> I agree with your approach. Such quantities should have standard names and
> should be separate data variables. We could include the required prefix in
> the Transformations section of the guidelines. It's not quite a
> transformation but it's a similar idea.
>
> Could we be more accurate/precise than "error"? For instance, does it mean
> "uncertainty"? Does it mean one standard deviation?
I think what we mean by error will probably need to be an attribute in it's
own right, it will depend on the instrument/data in question, and indeed how
the data was produced (for example, climatologies may well come with standard
deviations of the higher resolution temporal data as an "error"), but some
instruments will come with an error worked out from a physical error budget.
Bryan
--
Bryan Lawrence, Head NCAS/British Atmospheric Data Centre
web: www.badc.nerc.ac.uk phone: +44 1235 445012
CLRC: Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, OX110QX, UK
Received on Wed Mar 19 2003 - 00:56:37 GMT
