Hi Jonathan, Karl, Jim and all,
Many thanks for your responses!
Honestly, I am a bit lost because of cell_methods. I think I need first
to read more attentively about it to understand your explanations... :)
If presence of "climatology_bounds" depends on cell_methods
modifications, then it seems me complicated logically:
we have "climatology_bounds" even if it is not a climatology case...
Best regards,
Natalia
On 04/24/2014 07:20 PM, Jim Biard wrote:
> Natalie,
>
> The example 7.13 would not work according to the CF standard if the
> bounds were merely cell bounds. The cell_methods syntax "method within
> interval" and "method over interval" are defined to apply only when
> there is a climatology bounds. You are probably right that this isn't,
> strictly speaking, a climatology case (I'm not a climatologist, so I
> can't speak to that); but to achieve the result within the
> conventions, you must use the climatology formalism.
>
> Grace and peace,
>
> Jim
On 04/25/2014 12:11 AM, Karl Taylor wrote:
> Dear Natalia, Jonathan, and all,
>
> I don't think "maximum (interval: 1 day)" would be explicit enough for
> the variable "precipitation_amount". It wouldn't distinguish between
> precipitation_amounts accumulated over each 24 hour period or some
> shorter interval (say, from 8 to 11 each morning). With the use of a
> climatological axis and bounds, I think the cell_methods would be
> "time: sum within days time: maximum over days".
>
> Hope others will confirm.
>
> Best regards,
> Karl
On 04/24/2014 06:43 PM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> Dear Natalia
>
> I think example 7.13 is acceptable. It uses climatological bounds because there
> are two statistical operations. First, daily sums are accumulated. Second, the
> maximum is computed.
>
> However, I agree this is debatable and probably not ideal. It would be better
> seen as an example of section 7.3.2, with a single statistical operation of
> "maximum" and a cell_methods which recorded "(interval: 1 day)". Do you agree?
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
>
> On 4/24/14, 9:22 AM, Natalia Tatarinova wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have a question concerning the "Climatological statistics".
>>
>> According to the CF ("Climatological statistics" section in the CF
>> document), there are 2 ways to derive climatological statistics:
>>
>> 1. "Climatological statistics may be derived from corresponding
>> portions of the annual cycle in a set of years" (corresponding
>> examples: 7.8, 7.9, 7.11 and 7.12).
>>
>> 2. "Climatological statistics may also be derived from corresponding
>> portions of a range of days, for instance the average temperature for
>> each hour of the average day in April 1997" (corresponding examples:
>> 7.10).
>>
>> There is also the example 7.13 (Monthly-maximum daily precipitation
>> totals) which doesn't correspond to these ways.
>> For me, to find max daily precipitation for each month is an usual
>> statistics, but not climatological. So, I think that the
>> "climatology_bounds" variable should be renamed to "time_bnds".
>> For example, in CMIP5 project monthly statistics derived from daily
>> variables have no "climatology_bounds" but "time_bnds" variable.
>>
>> Could you enlighten me on this point, please?
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Natalia
>>
>> --
>> *Natalia Tatarinova*
>> CERFACS/Climate Modelling and Global Change
>> 42 Av. Gaspard Coriolis,
>> 31057, Toulouse, France
>> natalia.tatarinova at cerfacs.fr <mailto:natalia.tatarinova at cerfacs.fr>
>>
--
*Natalia Tatarinova*
CERFACS/Climate Modelling and Global Change
42 Av. Gaspard Coriolis,
31057, Toulouse, France
natalia.tatarinova at cerfacs.fr <mailto:natalia.tatarinova at cerfacs.fr>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20140428/1f54e13a/attachment.html>
Received on Mon Apr 28 2014 - 02:18:17 BST
