Mercator and Orthographic Projections have been added to Appendix F of CF:
http://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/documents/cf-conventions/1.4/cf-conventions.html
John Caron wrote:
> It has been added to CF, but because of an oversight, hasnt been
> published yet. Follow the specs on this page:
>
> http://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/wiki/GridMapNames
>
> Don Murray wrote:
>> Hi Eric-
>>
>> Kemp, Eric M. (TASCSD) wrote:
>>> I am writing a post-processor for the WRF model. My intent is to
>>> generate new netCDF files with optional derived variables on pressure
>>> surfaces. I have been writing my code to use the CF-1.0 convention
>>> as recommended in the IDV documentation, but this week I discovered
>>> that the CF convention does not include the Mercator map projection.
>>> (Note that the Transverse Mercator projection included in CF
>>> is not the same projection.)
>> We have proposed Mercator as a standard for CF, but it has not been
>> accepted yet. However, you can define it as:
>>
>> mercator
>>
>> char Mercator_Projection;
>> :grid_mapping_name = "mercator";
>> :longitude_of_projection_origin = 110.0;
>> :latitude_of_projection_origin = -25.0;
>> :standard_parallel = 0.02;
>> :_CoordinateTransformType = "Projection";
>> :_CoordinateAxisTypes = "GeoX GeoY";
>>
>> See the reference at:
>>
>> https://www.unidata.ucar.edu/software/netcdf-java/reference/StandardCoordinateTransforms.html
>>
>>> I've made two attempts to work around this while remaining in the
>>> CF convention: (1) label the data as Lambert Conformal with the
>>> standard latitudes equidistant from the equator, which is supposed
>>> to be equivalent to the Mercator projection; and (2) not write out
>>> any grid_mapping metadata, but include the latitudes/longitudes at
>>> each grid point. In the first case, IDV freezes up and has to be
>>> killed. In the second case, IDV claims there are no gridded data
>>> in the file, even though the data meets the CF convention (the
>>> grid_mapping metadata is listed as optional in the CF documentation).
>> Can you provide sample files so we can look into this?
>>
>>> So at this point, I'm looking for help on how to encode this for
>>> IDV. One extreme possibility is to abandon the CF convention and try
>>> using the _Coordinate convention described in the NetCDF-Java
>>> documentation, but I'd appreciate feedback before taking such a
>>> drastic step.
>> Try using the definition above.
>>
>>> (Note that my post-processor should also support other map projections
>>> used by WRF, so I'd like the output convention to be as flexible
>>> as possible.)
>> Don
>> *************************************************************
>> Don Murray UCAR Unidata Program
>> dmurray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx P.O. Box 3000
>> (303) 497-8628 Boulder, CO 80307
>> http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/staff/donm
>> *************************************************************
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> idvusers mailing list
>> idvusers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> For list information, to unsubscribe, visit:
>> http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/
> _______________________________________________
> idvusers mailing list
> idvusers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For list information, to unsubscribe, visit:
> http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/
