NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.
Current content can be found at unidata.ucar.edu.
To learn about what's going on, see About the Archive Site.
NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.
Current content can be found at unidata.ucar.edu.
To learn about what's going on, see About the Archive Site.
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 ==============================================================================
netcdfgroup archives: