I was the troublemaker..(at least in NCEP's eyes at least I am sure)
that pointed out at the CONDUIT/AMS meeting that 0.5 degree has no real
advantages for me and only consumes more bandwidth (I am limited in that
respect) and computing power. It doesn't have any more vertical levels
(like 825mb..which I need). I agree with Jim Nelson's e-mail that the
47-level GFS would be very good to have. I am already getting 7,5,3,2,1
mb data from this model from CPC, but would like the extra levels in the
lower atmosphere as well. The 47-level would consume more bandwidth and
CPU/disk..but at least I would be getting something better.
Regards,
Robert Mullenax
CSBF/NMSU
-----Original Message-----
From: conduit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of wgallus@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thu 6/5/2008 11:40 AM
To: conduit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [conduit] information needed about CONDUIT use
Hello CONDUIT users,
The Unidata Users Committee and the National Centers for Environmental
Prediction (NCEP) are seeking
information for the CONDUIT project. Decisions need to be made very soon
regarding removal and changes of
datastreams in CONDUIT. Please see the following information:
http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/newsletter/2008jun/index.html#Article2
If you prefer you can go directly to the questions and comments at:
http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/projects/CONDUIT/decisions_0608.html
Please respond by 30 June 2008.
Thanks for your cooperation.
Bill Gallus
Unidata Users Committee
CONDUIT Sub-committee
------------------------------------------------
| William A. Gallus, Jr. |
| Professor of Meteorology |
| Professor-in-charge, Meteorology Program |
| 3025 Agronomy |
| Iowa State University |
| 515-294-2270 |
------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
conduit mailing list
conduit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For list information or to unsubscribe, visit:
http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/
