Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> Dear all
>
> "realization" is fine as a standard name. I had forgotten we had introduced it.
> I withdraw my suggestion of ensemble_member_identifier.
>
> Thus, the standard name (of realization) can be used to identify an ensemble
> axis. I think that providing an axis attribute as well could be helpful: with
> spatiotemporal axes we have both methods of identification, and it is possible
> there might be ensemble axes in which realization was a not a good choice of
> standard name.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
using Tigge and ENSEMBLES datasets as examples (with GDS willing to modify their output), it sounds like a modest proposal is to recommend either of these attributes to identify the ensemble coordinate variable:
axis = "ensemble";
standard_name = "realization";
with the idea of keeping it simple and follow paco's advice:
> It was clear from the previous round of discussions that it would be very
difficult to aggregate ensemble members produced with different grids
using NetCDF3.
other standard names suggested are:
experiment_id, source, forcing, experiment, model, institution
which would involve clarifying what they mean in this context, and try to answer jeremy's question:
> what you do to maintain traceability back to the original model experiments.
is there someone who is willing to take this on and marshall this through the process?
Received on Thu Mar 18 2010 - 17:15:19 GMT
