Ken,
My bad here. I didn't thoroughly read your email. I jump to GOES. Our
format is for the imager/sounder data not the other instruments.
My apologies,
David Wilensky
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Tanaka [mailto:Ken.Tanaka@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 12:35 PM
To: David Wilensky
Cc: netcdfgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Can you recommend a netCDF convention for satellite time
series data?
Hi David,
Yes, I would be interested in seeing the ncdump -h of your format. If it
is very large, you can send it to just me rather than the email list. Is
your data type a geomagnetic time series?
Thanks,
Ken
David Wilensky wrote:
> We use a derivative of netCDF but the format will apply to netCDF as
> well. Would you like me to send you the equivalent of an ncdump -h of
> our format?
>
> Regards,
> David Wilensky
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-netcdfgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-netcdfgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Caron
> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 9:53 AM
> To: Ken Tanaka
> Cc: netcdfgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Can you recommend a netCDF convention for satellite time
> series data?
>
> Hi Ken:
>
> I dont know anything about this kind of data, but
>
> http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/software/netcdf/docs/BestPractices.html
>
> is worth reading.
>
> When you have a format, I'd be happy to comment on it.
>
> Ken Tanaka wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> We are planning to archive geomagnetic time series data from
>> geostationary satellites. The data are measured on GOES geostationary
>> satellites, and consist mainly of 4 floating point values, 3
>> component
>>
>
>
>> vectors and 1 total magnetic intensity. The data are available at two
>> frequency formats, half second (512 ms) and 1 minute. We will be
>> converting a simple binary format into the netCDF standard for
>>
> archive.
>
>> Does anyone here recommend a netCDF convention for this type of data?
>> If there is not a geomagnetic convention for netCDF, what would be
>> the
>>
> closest?
>
>> For navigation, the measurements are in-situ, but not located near
>> the
>>
>
>
>> surface of the Earth. The component intensities are measuring
>> magnetic
>>
>
>
>> field at the satellite, but they are defined in terms of North, East,
>> and Earth-ward. The satellites are geostationary, but there can be
>> very slight orbital inclination variations of less than .5 degrees,
>> and ground control can choose to alter the longitude as well
>> (normally
>>
>
>
>> done only for replacing old satellites with new ones). As far as
>> visualization tools go, is there any advantage to including the
>> latitude, longitude and geostationary altitude of 35,786 km? That is,
>> we could put it on a map, but it's debatable on whether it should be
>> presented that way.
>>
>> -Ken
>>
>>
>
> =====================================================================
> =
> ======
> To unsubscribe netcdfgroup, visit:
> http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing-list-delete-form.html
> =====================================================================
> =
> ======
>
>
>
==============================================================================
To unsubscribe netcdfgroup, visit:
http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing-list-delete-form.html
==============================================================================
