Hi.
That sounds like a great approach. That way it allows the freedom to specify a threshold or not.
Grace and peace,
Jim
Jim Biard
Research Scholar
Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites
Remote Sensing and Applications Division
National Climatic Data Center
151 Patton Ave, Asheville, NC 28801-5001
jim.biard at noaa.gov
828-271-4900
Follow us on Facebook!
On May 21, 2013, at 5:25 PM, Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk> wrote:
> Dear Charles
>
> Thank you for your email, and the subsequent one to Jim. In my earlier posting
> I was not particularly arguing against the proposal, but I thought the
> question should be asked. Evidently it is your intention that quantities with
> these names should indeed be regarded as comparable. That is OK. If at some
> point there arises a need for more specifically defined binary masks, other
> standard names could be proposed for them.
>
> You propose to include a nominal threshold of zero, indicating that any amount
> of cloud etc. constitutes "presence". I think we could avoid that need, and
> the related need to introduce standard names for the quantities in which the
> threshold was set, by stating in the definition that if no threshold is
> supplied, the binary mask is 1 if there is any non-zero amount of cloud etc.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20130522/c66fe8a9/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CicsLogoTiny.png
Type: image/png
Size: 15784 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20130522/c66fe8a9/attachment-0001.png>
Received on Wed May 22 2013 - 07:09:16 BST
