Dear Charles
Thanks for your proposals. As for the procedure, it is that Alison Pamment
(the manager of standard names) will review the discussion, and if she does
not identify any new questions, she will schedule the new standard names for
inclusion in the standard name table.
Best wishes
Jonathan
----- Forwarded message from Charles Paxson <cpaxson at aer.com> -----
> Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 14:33:41 -0400
> From: Charles Paxson <cpaxson at aer.com>
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.2.15)
> Gecko/20110303 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.9
> To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] GOES-R generated binary mask products under
> proposal
>
> Dear Jonathan and Jim,
>
> I have seen your last and recent words on the mask proposals, and I
> have incorporated your comments. I believe we are all in agreement,
> and thank you for your work. I have written out the proposed
> variables and definitions below according to our latest agreement.
> Please let me know the procedure to formally finish the proposal
> process for these four new mask standard names.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Charles Paxson
>
> aerosol_binary_mask: X_binary_mask has 1 where condition X is met, 0
> elsewhere. 1 = aerosols present, 0 = aerosolsabsent. Note that if
> no threshold is supplied, the binary mask is 1 if there is any
> non-zero amount of aerosol.
>
> smoke_binary_mask: X_binary_mask has 1 where condition X is met, 0
> elsewhere. 1 = smoke present, 0 = smoke absent. Note that if no
> threshold is supplied, the binary mask is 1 if there is any non-zero
> amount of smoke.
>
> dust_binary_mask: X_binary_mask has 1 where condition X is met, 0
> elsewhere. 1 = dust present, 0 = dust absent. Note that if no
> threshold is supplied, the binary mask is 1 if there is any non-zero
> amount of dust.
>
> cloud_binary_mask: X_binary_mask has 1 where condition X is met, 0
> elsewhere. 1 = cloud present, 0 = cloud absent (clear). Note that
> if no threshold is supplied, the binary mask is 1 if there is any
> non-zero amount of cloud
>
>
> On 05/21/2013 05:25 PM, Jonathan Gregory 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
>
>
> --
> Charles Paxson
> System Engineer
> Atmospheric and Environmental Research (AER), Inc.
> a Verisk Analytics Company
> 131 Hartwell Avenue, Lexington, MA 02421-3126
> office: 781-761-2209
> fax:781-761-2299
> www.aer.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
----- End forwarded message -----
Received on Tue May 28 2013 - 02:39:21 BST
