Hello Daniel,
When talking about points on the Earth's surface, the polar coordinate is often called "meridional" and the azimuthal coordinate "zonal", but I don't think this terminology is used in other contexts such as the coordinates relative to an orbiting satellite.
As I've said before, both coordinates is not enough, you also need to define the coordinates. Since we are dealing with a standard spherical coordinate system, I don't think it should be difficult to do this in a simple and clear way. I appreciate that the system used by NOAA is well established, but I'm talking about a fundamental which has been around for centuries and is universally recognised. The issue here is not about changing things, but filling in the gaps in the definition. All we need to know, apart from the location of the origin, is the orientation of the axis used to define the spherical coordinates.
We don't need to define the methodology in the coordinate specification if we can say clearly what the coordinates are,
regards,
Martin
________________________________
From: Daniel Lee <Daniel.Lee at eumetsat.int>
Sent: 20 April 2018 15:06
To: Juckes, Martin (STFC,RAL,RALSP); Randy Horne
Cc: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: RE: [CF-metadata] Fix Geostationary projection, including proposal for two new standard names
Hi Martin,
Yes, you need both coordinates in order to find the position viewed on the Earth's surface - it's not a simple distance measurement.
I'm a bit confused about your use of azimuth vs. polar - do you mean meridional and zonal?
I'd be cautious about bringing in too much information about how geostationary satellites function into the grid mapping. Not all satellites use the same scanning principals - technology changes and there have already been a number of different geostationary satellites deployed with different scanning characteristics, so that the geostationary constellation currently contains satellites with different scanning methods. This will surely continue to change in the future.
At the end of the day, describing geostationary satellite data with the method NOAA is currently using is well-established and has worked well for decades in several data formats, so I don't think we'll benefit much from changing anything except for maybe the name of the variables. The methodology should clearly remain the same.
Cheers,
Daniel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf
> Of Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC
> Sent: 20 April 2018 15:41
> To: Randy Horne <rhorne at excaliburlabs.com>
> Cc: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Fix Geostationary projection, including proposal
> for two new standard names
>
> Hello Randy,
>
>
> thanks, that clears up a lot of my confusion.
>
>
> Since the coordinates are N/S and E/W aligned, at least at the origin, it may
> be better to include this in the names. "x" and "y" are generally used for
> coordinates which have an arbitrary orientation relative to the Earth's axis
> which then needs to be specified in additional attribute values.
>
>
> Your answer does not completely define the angles for me. If we consider a
> point (A) which is, for example, at 45N at the same longitude, then it angular
> distance in the N/S direction is uniquely defined, but if we take another point
> (B) 45degrees to the east, then we have two angles and their values will
> depend on the definition of the coordinate system.
>
>
> I've found some documentation on geostationary satellites which suggests
> that the viewing angles are related to the gimbal system, with an outer
> "sweep" axis and an inner "fixed-angle" axis (this is from
> proj4.org/projections/geos.html). Relating this back to the mathematical
> terminology of spherical coordinates that I'm familiar with, I believe the angle
> of rotation around the sweep axis is the azimuthal angle and the rotation
> around the fixed axis is the polar angle. I.e. we have a spherical coordinate
> system relative to the sweep axis.
>
>
> The proj4.org document also states that the GEOS series have the sweep axis
> aligned E/W, which would imply that projection_y_angular is an azimuthal
> angle and projection_x_angular is a polar angle. With this information (and
> the height of the satellite) I would be able to calculate the two angles for
> point B. I'll get a different answer if projection_y_angular is the polar angle
> and projection_x_angular is azimuthal, so it is important to know which is
> which. Perhaps projection_polar_angle, projection_azimuthal_angle would
> be better?
>
>
> The calculation would indeed be complicated, as has already been
> emphasized below, but I think it is worth going back to the fundamentals
> here, and stating the underlying assumptions behind the coordinate system.
> E.g. the fact that it is defined relative to a fixed point above the Earth's
> surface which corresponds to an ideal satellite position.
>
>
> regards,
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Randy Horne <rhorne at excaliburlabs.com>
> Sent: 20 April 2018 13:56
> To: Juckes, Martin (STFC,RAL,RALSP)
> Cc: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Fix Geostationary projection, including proposal
> for two new standard names
>
> Hi Martin:
>
> RE: I agree with Jim that a little more basic information is needed about what
> the angles are. I may be misinterpreting the discussion, but I had imagined
> that the angles as components of a spherical coordinate system centred on
> the satellite, with the nadir at (0,0) ... is that correct?
>
> The projection_x_angular_coordinate and projection_y_angular coordinates
> are the angular distances from the satellite?s nadir in the E/W an N/S
> direction, respectively, from the ideal location of the imaging instrument in
> geostationary orbit.
>
>
> v/r
>
> randy
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 2018, at 4:06 AM, Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC
> <martin.juckes at stfc.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > I agree with Jim that a little more basic information is needed about what
> the angles are. I may be misinterpreting the discussion, but I had imagined
> that the angles as components of a spherical coordinate system centred on
> the satellite, with the nadir at (0,0) ... is that correct?
>
> _____________________________________
>
> Randy C Horne (rhorne at excaliburlabs.com) Principal Engineer, Excalibur
> Laboratories Inc.
> voice & fax: (321) 952.5100
> cell: (321) 693.1074
> url: http://www.excaliburlabs.com
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Any email message from EUMETSAT is sent in good faith but shall neither be binding nor construed as constituting a commitment by EUMETSAT, except where provided for in a written agreement or contract or if explicitly stated in the email. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the sender and do not necessarily represent those of EUMETSAT. This message and any attachments are intended for the sole use of the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, dissemination or distribution (in whole or in part) of its contents is not permitted. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system.
Received on Fri Apr 20 2018 - 08:26:23 BST
