I think that these are fairly important QC checks for wind and current
data, and that they deserve to have standard names to make them
more useful. Although the algorithms may differ between instruments,
and may even be proprietary, these variables are often the most useful
way to provide information about the reliability of the geophysical
measurements.
I had asked about the best way to label this parameter for ADCP data
several years ago, but I wasn't able to explain why standard_error wasn't
appropriate (it's a little outside my field).
Could we use a standard name modifier like 'instrument_error',
or even just 'error', to convey the meaning of instrument-provided
error information? That would be much simpler than requesting a
name for each instrument type (although I suppose there may be
only a handful of those).
Thanks - Nan
On 7/1/13 1:10 PM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> Dear Randy
>
> If it is very product-specific, is it really a geophysical quantity which needs
> a standard name? I mean, are there data from several sources for this quantity
> which should be regarded as comparable, and which therefore should have a
> common standard name?
>
> If the answer is Yes, then I would suggest you propose a standard name which
> explicit names the algorithm, like e.g. isccp_cloud_area_fraction.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
>
> ----- Forwarded message from "rhorne at excaliburlabs.com"<rhorne at excaliburlabs.com> -----
>
>> From: "rhorne at excaliburlabs.com"<rhorne at excaliburlabs.com>
>> To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>> Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 08:28:15 -0400
>> Subject: [CF-metadata] how to represent a non-standard error
>>
>>
>>
>> Folks: the GOES-R ground system generates a derived motion winds product.
>> Accompaning each wind speed& direction in the product is the amount of
>> error associated withe the vector. This error is not a standard_error, but
>> an error estimate based on a custom algorithm. Because this is not a
>> standard_error, it would seem that using a standard_error standard_name
>> modifier would be misleading. Any thoughts on how to represent this
>> product-specific error in the NetCDF file ? (The best idead I could come up
>> with so far is to establish an ancillary data relationwhip between the wind
>> speed/direction variables and the error variable, and use the error
>> variable's long_name to describe the error) very respectfully, randy
>> _______________________________________________
>> CF-metadata mailing list
>> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
--
*******************************************************
* Nan Galbraith (508) 289-2444 *
* Upper Ocean Processes Group Mail Stop 29 *
* Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution *
* Woods Hole, MA 02543 *
*******************************************************
Received on Mon Jul 01 2013 - 14:00:38 BST
