RE: Can you recommend a netCDF convention for satellite time series data?

["David Wilensky" <davidw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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
===============================================================================