NOTE: The cf-satellite mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.
Hi Aleksandar,
Thanks for the reply, hopefully final feedback to your feedback.
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 4:15 AM, Peter Miu <Peter.Miu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> For the following standard name, should the units be set to 1 since it does
> not have Canonical units?
>
> :standard_name="sensor_band_identifier"
> :units=1
>> Variables of type char/string don't have units.
Fine.
> The unit of radiance is a difficult one to defined as the SI version is not
> easy to work with.
> The one defined in the proposal is the most usable for the users even though
> it is not SI.
> Units definition should take usability into consideration.
>> I interpret this comment as a support for the proposed units, yes?
Yes.
> platform_zenith_angle & sensor_zenith_angle could be changed to be more
> generic by:
>
> :standard_name="platform_look_angle"
> :standard_name="sensor_look_angle
>> You are probably referring to "scan" names not "zenith" names. I agree
>> with the suggestion; "look" is more generic and yet still captures the
>> meaning.
Yes and thanks for doing the update on the webpage.
> Another observation was made for platform_zenith_angle & sensor_zenith_angle.
> The platform_zenith_angle (units=degree) is already in the CF convention
> (this was also observed by Mike Grant; cf-satellite Digest, Vol 25, Issue 4).
>> I removed platform_zenith_angle from the proposed names.
OK.
> However, this is not the best name for the instruments' scan angle but
> the CF convention also includes zenith_angle and angle_of_incidence.
> It is suggested that this sufficient.
>
> Do we need sensor_zenith_angle as this may be described by the
> Angle-of-incidence ?
>> angle_of_incidence is not applicable to passive remote sensing because
>> its definition mentions a surface-approaching beam of radiation.
>> zenith_angle in my opinion is not precise enough for remotely sensed data.
OK.
> We would like to add the following to your proposal to the CF:
>
> :standard_name="spectral_toa_irradiance"
>> I think a more compatible name would be "toa_spectral_irradiance".
>> What about direction: outgoing or downward?
I've not had a reply from my colleague on this so I cannot comment.
I guess we can leave it out and I will propose it when I have a reply.
> :standard_name="atmosphere_reflectivity_ratio"
> :unit="2*pi / (cos(SZA)) * I/I0"
>> This is not a valid units string.
OK, I'll sort it later as its from the same colleague.
> Note, the standard names proposed at the end of the page are GSICS related
> that have been work with & adopted by EUMETSAT and
> the other GSICS partners. This should be made clear that a wider community
> have agreed on these proposed names & units which
> could help with their acceptance.
>> I agree. Thanks for pointing this out.
OK, thanks.
I've also past your comments to the others but have not received any feedback
yet.
I've off on vacation tomorrow back next Thursday so I wanted to provide you
with a reply.
Regards,
Pete.
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 01:01:33 -0400
From: Aleksandar Jelenak <aleksandar.jelenak@xxxxxxxx>
To: cf-satellite@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [cf-satellite] New Standard Names for Satellite Data
Message-ID:
<CAAth-n_q7WRviaTOuPuGu0UT+C0bvPQDDWjKCXYV3ot7QesoEw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Dear all:
Here's the diff view of all the changes made after the first round of comments:
http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php?title=Standard_Names_For_Satellite_Observations&diff=41049&oldid=40702
-Aleksandar
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
cf-satellite mailing list
cf-satellite@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For list information or to unsubscribe, visit:
http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/
End of cf-satellite Digest, Vol 25, Issue 6
*******************************************
cf-satellite archives: