On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 9:11 AM, John Caron <caron at unidata.ucar.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> I think another possibility is to put the bounds information on the
> "continuous integral" data variables, rather than on the time coordinate.
> Otherwise we have this proliferation of time coordinates, which confuses
> things.
>
>
I am sorry -- the proliferation of time coordinates describes things, it
does not confuse things. Mislabelling the data w.r.t. time confuses
things. This is particularly true of models which put variables of vastly
different time meanings on the same grid, and never explain what they have
done. An instantaneous sample is considerably different from an integration
over the interval (careful time analysis will undoubtably reveal a
sub-gridpoint time lag).
This is not just a model problem -- current meters once upon a time
calculated average speed and instantaneous direction, which messed up
calculations of component velocities. Also, thermisters have thermal mass,
also introducing a lag with respect to other "simultaneously" measured
quantities.
We are just beginning to describe data better -- this is no time to
perpetuate mistakes.
--
Dr. M. Benno Blumenthal benno at iri.columbia.edu
International Research Institute for climate and society
The Earth Institute at Columbia University
Lamont Campus, Palisades NY 10964-8000 (845) 680-4450
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20091117/4584d3dc/attachment-0002.html>
Received on Tue Nov 17 2009 - 10:06:54 GMT
