Ah, okay. That makes sense. (I'm not used to thinking of pressure as
a coordinate.)
That example is very helpful. I think I understand now.
Thanks a bunch!
--Seth
> Dear Seth,
>
> No, geopotential_height is in general a function of longitude, latitude,
> time, and (typically) pressure. If a single level is stored (say 500
> hPa), then you should define the coordinates attribute to indicate what
> the pressure level is. See example 5.8 in
> http://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/documents/cf-conventions/1.0/ch05s07.html
>
> By the way, geopotential height can also be given on surfaces of
> constant "potential temperature".
>
> Karl
>
> Karl Taylor
> PCMDI
>
>
> mcginnis at ucar.edu wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've got a bunch of data that I'm going to be checking for CF
>> compliance, and I had a question about the standard name
>> "geopotential_height".
>>
>> As I understand it, geopotential height is relative to a particular
>> pressure level, so you could have the 500-millibar geopotential
>> height or the 850 hPa geopotential height or whatever.
>>
>> Does the standard name "geopotential_height" assume a particular
>> pressure level? Is there a conventional way of indicating what it
>> is in an attribute or something like that?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --Seth
>>
>>
>> ----
>> Seth McGinnis
>> Associate Scientist
>> ISSE / NCAR
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CF-metadata mailing list
>> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tue Jun 05 2007 - 18:05:05 BST
