NOTE: The cf-pointobsconvention mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.
I've been reading the comments on the z-coordinate and can see definite value in having the z-coordinate in the data, and think that the GRIB2 format does give some guidance on this, but it also would need to be examined properly... and I fear that may not be as trivial as first thought. For example, 220 - Planetary Boundary Layer from the table 4.5 could leave users to ask how the PBL has been determined: was it from temperature inversion, aerosol content dropping or some other method? Was it determined from a single sounding/profile (e.g. radiosonde) or from averaging over time - this is important as a sonde could give a different PBL height if it is in a convective plume or an area of entrainment from the free troposphere. As for whether the z-coordinate should be required or recommended I'd tend to come down on the side of it being recommended and not required. While it would be ideal to have (for example) both the Met. station height above sea level and the height of each instrument above this base height making it compulsory may either put people of from using the format all together or could make it hard to get legacy data into archives where such information may not be readily accessible and so the archived data then has lots of redundant missing value entered in it. Cheers, graham Graham A Parton BADC Helpdesk Manager R25 1.117 Science and Technology Facilities Council Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Harwell Science and Innovation Campus Didcot, Oxon OX11 0QX Tel: +44 (0) 1235 446432 Fax: +44(0) 1235 446314 P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
cf-pointobsconvention archives: