Re: [cf-satellite] related to scanning direction

NOTE: The cf-satellite mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.

Hello Ghansham,

Yes, from an Earth perspective (latitude,longitude) the scanning geometry is complicated. But, from an orbit and scanning perspective, most polar satellites behave about the same.

Polar Orbits: They have high inclinations to cover the poles or low inclination for the tropics. Scanning: cross track for most instruments; conical for microwave [to keep incidence angle constant].

So, the CF specification will need to include orbit information [the Two Line Elements (TLE) define this] and scanning information [incidence angle, sweep angle, etc.] so that the latitude/longitude can be determined for each pixel.

Dave

On 8/22/12 8:52 AM, ghansham sangar wrote:
Hello Sir..
Hope you are doing fine.

I understand you point of frame of reference. Even I was also confused when I saw that dataset for the first time. But later I realized in one of the conversation with
Tom Rink Sir, also, this is what came out (as told in earlier mail too):
The orbit has an inclination of as low as 20 deg (no coverage on poles).
The reason is to improve the temporal resolution over the tropics.
And the sensor scans across track w.r.t to such low inclination track.
And that is why the data is packed also in that manner (up down).
The best thing I can do is post one snapshot generated from toolsUI of one of the parameter displayed as image to have a better understanding of what exactly the data looks like. I know its a pretty tough scanning geometry to understand.

regards
Ghansham


On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:35 AM, Tom Whittaker <whittaker@xxxxxxxx <mailto:whittaker@xxxxxxxx>> wrote:

    Hello Ghansham...

    I hope you are well.

    I believe the "scan direction" (either "up/down" or "left/right") is a
    matter of perspective -- if the frame of reference is on the
    satellite, looking "forward" along the flight path, then I would be
    more inclined to say "left/right", as "up/down" would refer to some
    vertical scanning -- from my frame of reference on the satellite.

    Regarding CF Conventions.  There are no conventions for dealing with
    this.  There have been discussions in the past dealing with "swath
    data", and you might have a Google of that (plus 'netcdf') and see
    what others have been thinking about.

    There is also at least one reference to some data already being
    written to hdf files, which might prove of interest.  The sad fact is
    that the satellite community for the longest time did not embrace
    NetCDF, and so we must play "catch-up" with the people who have
    defined conventions for model/gridded data and in-situ data.

    My take is that some common characteristics (like 'band' and
    'central_wavelength' (or _wavenumber) should be defined using
    conventions and "standard_names", but that characteristics of
    particular platforms must, by necessity, be defined for those
    platforms.  I also think that the use of the "standard_names" will go
    a long way toward helping application developers in writing file
    readers that can understand some of the basic structures of the data,
    while at the same time providing end users an opportunity to write
    specialized interfaces that meet their particular research or
    operational needs.

    Best wishes,

    tom


  • 2012 messages navigation, sorted by:
    1. Thread
    2. Subject
    3. Author
    4. Date
    5. ↑ Table Of Contents
  • Search the cf-satellite archives: