Also, I think datum and precision are completely different things.
Specifying or not specifying datum does not say anything about
precision. GCM or any model for that matter if it uses data with known
datum as input, I would expect an output with known datum. Regardless of
the model resolution or accuracy, this datum should be specified.
Upendra
On 7/28/2011 11:34 AM, Upendra Dadi wrote:
> I have heard this argument before- datum need not be provided for
> datasets which are too imprecise. The usual assumption: "Choosing a
> wrong datum doesn't change anything. So, lets not specify datum even
> though I have the datum. Lets leave it for the user to choose the
> datum, even though I know the datum." What is often ignored is that
> the user is made to do extra work here. She/he has to make a choice of
> choosing a datum, when she/he doesn't have to. Even if datum does not
> matter (which I don't agree), users time & effort does matter.
> Software usually need this information to function. Using flags and
> warnings in the software is all good if the datum is not there. But
> why should user have to read this, when he doesn't have to (if the
> datum is specified)? Data providers have an additional responsibility
> here.
>
> Upendra
>
>
> On 7/27/2011 3:17 PM, V. Balaji wrote:
>> This seems to have become a discussion specifically about the datum.
>>
>> This issue was discussed at length at the GO-ESSP meeting in Asheville.
>> It seems reasonable to conclude on the basis of those discussions, and
>> the current ones about GCMs, that some datasets are simply too
>> imprecise for the datum to matter, while for others it might be
>> critical.
>>
>> Perhaps the best approach still is for the datum to remain optional,
>> and it be left to the end user or application to decide what to do when
>> they are operating on two datasets where one has a datum specified
>> and the other doesn't; or when both do but they are different. A
>> quick implementation might be to emit a warning and keep going:-).
>>
>> This may go some way to meeting David's requirement that end users "know
>> they are making assumptions", but I don't see an alternative to allowing
>> datasets without a datum to treat coordinates as having whatever
>> reference datum the end user would like it to have. It would make no
>> sense to require GCM output to mention a datum at all. We have been
>> known to run coupled models where different component models use
>> different values for the radius of a spherical Earth:-).
>>
>> David Blodgett writes:
>>
>>> Jonathan and Karl,
>>>
>>> I don't disagree with the GCM examples or lack of model resolution
>>> being talked about here, I just don't think that is the only argument.
>>>
>>> There are cases, like downscaled climate projections, reanalysis
>>> products, or radar indicated rainfall, where a datum is critical to
>>> interpreting the data accurately. My concern is that the justified
>>> disregard for datums at course resolution (and lack of requirement
>>> for it in the spec) fosters a lack of awareness that datums become
>>> critically important at finer scales.
>>>
>>> Jonathan, you have a point that an analyst should be free to make
>>> their own assumptions. However, I would prefer that they know they
>>> are making assumptions. It would be helpful if the CF specification
>>> paid some tribute to this issue rather than treating lat/lon
>>> coordinates as base-equivalent coordinates.
>>>
>>> Are there any arguments against CF recommending a standard datum
>>> assumption when intersecting data without a datum specified with
>>> data that does have a datum specified?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>> On Jul 27, 2011, at 12:14 PM, Karl Taylor wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> (I think the horse still shows a few signs of life)
>>>>
>>>> what I'm arguing is that if the results the scientists are using
>>>> come from a GCM, then although the two scientists got differences,
>>>> those differences (no matter how large) should not be considered
>>>> significant in terms of their reliability (as opposed to in some
>>>> statistical sense). Just as one wouldn't rely on a climate model
>>>> to predict global mean temperature to within 0.001 K (and surely it
>>>> would be silly and perhaps misleading to report temperatures to
>>>> this precision) one shouldn't expect to pin down the *location* of
>>>> the grid cell temperature reported by a GCM to a point given with
>>>> higher precision than the spacing of the grid cells (at least when
>>>> comparing with observations).
>>>>
>>>> I will grant you that at some time far in the future, it is
>>>> possible our models' resolution and accuracy will have improved to
>>>> the point that we might have to alter the precision with which we
>>>> report the locations of their output values, but we're not there yet.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Karl
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 7/27/11 9:23 AM, David Blodgett wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Not to beat a dead horse, but this issue has been a huge stumbling
>>>>> block in our work to integrate data and software across the
>>>>> climate and geographic communities.
>>>>>
>>>>> The argument here is: Since CF data is usually so coarse and low
>>>>> precision complete geolocation metadata should not be required.
>>>>>
>>>>> An example of why this matters: Two scientists take the same
>>>>> downscaled climate data that doesn't have a datum specification
>>>>> and import it into their application. One application assumes one
>>>>> datum, the other assumes another datum. Scientist 1's results
>>>>> differ from scientist 2's results. In situations where their are
>>>>> steep gradients in downscaled data, these differences may be
>>>>> substantial.
>>>>>
>>>>> One solution would be to adopt a default datum for data lacking
>>>>> datum definition. So, given a file that uses lat/lon and claims to
>>>>> follow CF spec, a scientist could follow the specs guidance on
>>>>> what datum to assume. Without this type guidance or a requirement
>>>>> to include the information, lat/lon without a datum amounts to
>>>>> providing any other value without units.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dave
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 27, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Karl Taylor wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> another view:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can't remember *all* the issues here, but certainly reporting the
>>>>>> latitude and longitude points for GCM grids without further
>>>>>> precision (e.g., information on the figure of the Earth) is
>>>>>> sufficient for any comparison with observations. Only certain
>>>>>> (usually prescribed) conditions at the earth's surface (e.g.,
>>>>>> surface height) coming from a GCM should be trusted at the
>>>>>> individual grid point scale, and no sub-grid scale information is
>>>>>> directly available from the GCM (normally). So, even if a
>>>>>> station data is near the boundary of a GCM's grid-cell, it should
>>>>>> hardly matter which of the grid cells it straddles you compare it
>>>>>> to. The GCM sort of gives you a grid cell average value that
>>>>>> applies to some region in the vicinity of the cell. So, it
>>>>>> doesn't matter where you think it is precisely located.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Down-scaled output from the GCM will be at higher resolution, but
>>>>>> again since the original data doesn't apply at a point but for a
>>>>>> general region (usually quite a bit larger than 12 km, and even
>>>>>> if it weren't we wouldn't believe stuff going on at that scale),
>>>>>> so where the cell is exactly located again doesn't matter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> best regards,
>>>>>> Karl
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/27/11 4:38 AM, David Blodgett wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Without the grid_mapping, the lat and lon still make sense in
>>>>>>>> the common case
>>>>>>>> (and original CF case) of GCM data, and in many other cases,
>>>>>>>> the intended
>>>>>>>> usage of the data does not require precision about the figure
>>>>>>>> of the Earth.
>>>>>>>> Although this metadata could be valuable if it can be defined,
>>>>>>>> I think it would
>>>>>>>> be too onerous to require it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I hope to present on this very issue at AGU. The problem we see
>>>>>>> with ambiguous definition of datums is a cascade of
>>>>>>> non-recognition of datums through processing algorithms and in
>>>>>>> the output of some processes that generate very detailed data.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The prime example is downscaled climate data. Because the
>>>>>>> climate modelers involved generally consider lat/lon to be a
>>>>>>> lowest common denominator, the datum used to geolocate
>>>>>>> historical data (like rain gages) is neglected. What results is,
>>>>>>> in our case, a 1/8deg (12km) grid with no datum. This is
>>>>>>> unacceptable. As at this resolution, the errors in a wrong
>>>>>>> assumption of datum for the grid can cause very substantial (a
>>>>>>> full grid cell or more) geolocation errors.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the CF community intends to consume any ground based data,
>>>>>>> then datums must be preserved from ingest of ground based
>>>>>>> forcing throughout data storage and processing. This is
>>>>>>> fundamental information that is required for ALL data comparison
>>>>>>> operations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would argue that CF compliance should require this
>>>>>>> information. This puts the requirement to make metadata
>>>>>>> assumptions on data publishers/producers rather than data
>>>>>>> consumers. It is unacceptable to have different data consumers
>>>>>>> making different assumptions of geolocation on the same data.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Off soapbox.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dave Blodgett
>>>>>>> Center for Integrated Data Analytics (CIDA)
>>>>>>> USGS WI Water Science Center
>>>>>>> 8505 Research Way Middleton WI 53562
>>>>>>> 608-821-3899 | 608-628-5855 (cell)
>>>>>>> http://cida.usgs.gov
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 26, 2011, at 5:24 AM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear all
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For datasets which are intended for analysis by end-users I
>>>>>>>> think it would be
>>>>>>>> undesirable to remove the requirement of providing explicit lat
>>>>>>>> and lon
>>>>>>>> coords even if a grid_mapping is provided. I think it is
>>>>>>>> unrealistic to expect
>>>>>>>> all software which someone might use to analyse netCDF files to
>>>>>>>> be able to
>>>>>>>> recognise and act upon all possible values of the CF
>>>>>>>> grid_mapping attribute,
>>>>>>>> and without the lat and lon information the user would have a
>>>>>>>> problem. If the
>>>>>>>> issue is storage space in the file I think the much better
>>>>>>>> choice is to store
>>>>>>>> the explicit coordinates in another file, by extending the CF
>>>>>>>> convention to
>>>>>>>> allow datasets to be distributed over several linked files, as
>>>>>>>> gridspec does
>>>>>>>> for example.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Steve appears to suggest that grid_mapping is required in some
>>>>>>>> circumstances,
>>>>>>>> but I don't think it is at present. However, the text Steve
>>>>>>>> quotes may not be
>>>>>>>> quite right:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "/When the coordinate variables for a horizontal grid are not
>>>>>>>> longitude and latitude,*_it is required that the true
>>>>>>>> latitude and
>>>>>>>> longitude coordinates be supplied_* via the coordinates
>>>>>>>> attribute/."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The text should make it clear that this requirement applies
>>>>>>>> when the data has a
>>>>>>>> geolocated horizontal grid. It doesn't necessarily apply to
>>>>>>>> idealised cases.
>>>>>>>> We could clarify this with a defect ticket.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jonathan
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> CF-metadata mailing list
>>>>>>>> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>>>>>>>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> CF-metadata mailing list
>>>>>> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>>>>>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Received on Thu Jul 28 2011 - 09:55:05 BST
