Dear All:
Finalizing the sunglint_angle standard name based on a recommendation from Gary Meehan three weeks ago...
definition
The angle between an incident beam of solar radiation and the outgoing
beam specularly reflected at a sea surface.
canonical units:
rad
very respectfully,
randy
+++++++
[CF-metadata] new standard_name: sunglint_angle
Gary Meehan gmeehan at aer.com
Mon Feb 3 04:48:40 MST 2014
Previous message: [CF-metadata] new standard_name: sunglint_angle
Next message: [CF-metadata] Calendar string clarification
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
It is my understanding that sun glint is associated with reflection of
sunlight off of a body of water. I would
suggest amending the definition to the following:
The angle between an incident beam of solar radiation and the outgoing
beam specularly reflected at a sea surface.
Sincerely,
Gary Meehan
On 1/29/2014 9:05 AM, rhorne at excaliburlabs.com wrote:
> Dear All:
>
> I would like to propose the following...
>
> standard_name: sunglint_angle
>
> definition:
>
> The sunglint angle is that between the direction of the beam of
> incident solar radiation and the direction into which it is reflected.
>
> canonical units:
>
> rad
>
>
>
> Note that I used the existing CF standard name "scattering_angle" as a
> model for the definition and canonical units.
>
>
>
> very respectfully,
>
> randy
>
>
Begin forwarded message:
> From: "rhorne at excaliburlabs.com" <rhorne at excaliburlabs.com>
> Subject: [CF-metadata] new standard_name: sunglint_angle
> Date: January 29, 2014 at 9:05:53 AM EST
> To: <cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> Reply-To: rhorne at excaliburlabs.com
>
> Dear All:
>
> I would like to propose the following...
>
> standard_name: sunglint_angle
>
> definition:
>
> The sunglint angle is that between the direction of the beam of incident solar radiation and the direction into which it is reflected.
> canonical units:
>
> rad
>
>
>
> Note that I used the existing CF standard name "scattering_angle" as a model for the definition and canonical units.
>
>
>
> very respectfully,
>
> randy
>
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
____________________________________
Randy C. Horne (rhorne at excaliburlabs.com)
Principal Engineer, Excalibur Laboratories Inc.
voice & fax: (321) 952.5100
url:
http://www.excaliburlabs.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20140224/15f2988b/attachment-0001.html>
n_at_ifremer.frq×Ukellowd_at_mar.dfo-mpo.gc.caqØUmred_at_noc.soton.ac.ukqÙUcjbeegle777_at_gmail.comqÚUr.muetzelfeldt_at_ed.ac.ukqÛUlaurent.lefort_at_csiro.auqÜUcote.helene_at_ouranos.caqÝUtaylor13_at_llnl.govqÞUarchive_at_mail-archive.comqßUandrea.antonello_at_gmail.comqàUmark.ignaszewski_at_navy.milqáUlists_at_hilboll.deqâUc.l.pascoe_at_rl.ac.ukqãUhyoklee_at_hdfgroup.orgqäUsara.hornquist_at_smhi.seqåUdaol_at_bodc.ac.ukqæU mark.hedley_at_metoffice.gov.ukqçUp.p.li_at_jpl.nasa.govqèUmatt.freer_at_meteo.frqéUforrest_at_climatemodeling.orgqêUpletzer_at_txcorp.comqëUmpiasecki_at_ccny.cuny.eduqìUdaniel.gilmore_at_noaa.govqíUsteve.ansari_at_noaa.govqîU pjc_at_llnl.govqïUsteven.c.hankin_at_noaa.govqðUj.hilaire_at_mmu.ac.ukqñUpaul.eglitis_at_eumetsat.intqòU!allyn.treshansky_at_metoffice.gov.ukqóUsimboss1_at_gmail.comqôUguarnieri_at_bo.ingv.itqõUjma_at_cola.iges.orgqöUpainter1_at_llnl.govq÷UricFrom mark.hedley at metoffice.gov.uk Wed Feb 26 03:18:30 2014
From: mark.hedley at metoffice.gov.uk (Hedley, Mark)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 10:18:30 +0000
Subject: [CF-metadata] How to handle a forecast model with non-monotonic
coordinate variables
In-Reply-To: <CAFhraUxHT-r2aH2a=SW3noZQFCpFm4qjUUikiZShPV=RJNkcvQ_at_mail.gmail.com>
References: <20140218180837.GB1266_at_met.reading.ac.uk>,
<CAFhraUxHT-r2aH2a=SW3noZQFCpFm4qjUUikiZShPV=RJNkcvQ_at_mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7819C496F4E10E47BCEFBE74551AAC960CAAD2_at_EXXCMPD1DAG3.cmpd1.metoffice.gov.uk>
> We could modify this to:
> "Allowed for auxiliary coordinate variables but not allowed for coordinate variables. Missing data is only permitted in auxiliary coordinate varirables only at points where the data variable(s) concerned has missing data."
I would support this, I think there are use cases where missing data at the 'same location' in the data array and an auxiliary coordinate array is valid and sensible.
Rich's case is clearly valid. I have a couple more which I can illustrate in further detail as we pursue this requirement.
mark
________________________________________
From: CF-metadata [cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] on behalf of Signell, Richard [rsignell at usgs.gov]
Sent: 18 February 2014 21:01
To: Gregory, Jonathan
Cc: CF metadata
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] How to handle a forecast model with non-monotonic coordinate variables
Jonathan,
In the very last comment in ticket #85
(
https://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/85) you say:
"In the "Description" column of Appendix A, in the entries for
_FillValue andmissing_value, replace "Not allowed for coordinate data
except in the case of auxiliary coordinate varibles in discrete
sampling geometries." with "Allowed for auxiliary coordinate variables
but not allowed for coordinate variables."
This would seem to allow missing values in auxilliary coordinates for
grid datatypes, which is what we need for the use case I presented.
We could modify this to:
"Allowed for auxiliary coordinate variables but not allowed for
coordinate variables. Missing data is only permitted in auxiliary
coordinate varirables only at points where the data variable(s)
concerned has missing data."
Thanks,
Rich
Received on Mon Feb 24 2014 - 16:33:45 GMT
