Climate Data Records Technical Advisory Group - CDAF Review

Climate Data Records Technical Advisory Group - CDAF Review

Postby podaac » Thu Apr 03, 2014 12:00 pm

Please add any comments on the initial "Climate Data Assessment Framework" to this thread.

Initial comments are invited up to the end of March.

1. Page 2, Section 2, Purpose and Scope: The CDR definition is given in quotations, but no reference is provided. Looks like maybe it is the NRC definition?

garycorlett
podaac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 4:00 pm

Re: Climate Data Records Technical Advisory Group - CDAF Rev

Postby podaac » Thu Apr 03, 2014 12:01 pm

Marked-up version of Word file sent to Chris Merchant - June 6, 2013.

Peter J Minnett
podaac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 4:00 pm

Re: Climate Data Records Technical Advisory Group - CDAF Rev

Postby podaac » Thu Apr 03, 2014 12:01 pm

CDAF comments

Page 11: What is meant by "Some datasets concatenate several satellite sensors to create harmonized data, where, and averaging over the subset relevant to each satellite sensor is also informative."?

Page 12 table: Shouldn't "mean" be "median"?

Page 13 table: Shouldn't "mean" be "median"?
What does "contributing sensor X" mean?

Page 14 table: Shouldn't "standard deviation" be "robust standard deviation"?

Above comments also apply to "mean" and "standard deviation" in the table on page 19.

Can we measure sensitivity of AVHRR SST when a regression algorithm method has been used?

HelenBeggs
podaac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 4:00 pm

Re: Climate Data Records Technical Advisory Group - CDAF Rev

Postby podaac » Thu Apr 03, 2014 12:03 pm

Are these description criteria intended for L2 to L4? Some things may be harder or less meaningful to do at certain levels.

Page 9, Section 4.2.4. Temporal resolution. What does "95% of ocean" mean in this description of daily coverage? Is this relative to the sea mask used averaged over the entire year or period of record? Is it the satellite footprint?
Page 9. 4.2.5 Timeliness of new data. Perhaps this should contain more flexibility. For example, our "preliminary" 1-day latency is deleted after 15 days and the "final" version is produced and put in LTSRF. However, the reprocessed time series that uses harmonized higher quality inputs extends only up to 2006. So the product is most likely lower quality after 2006.

Pag 9. 4.2.7 Valid data fraction. In the example: 14% of total what? L3 or 4 ocean gridpoints on x-km grid? L2 pixels in original satellite projection? On an annual average basis?
Page 12. Section 4.3.1.1 Will the TAG identify or provide the buoy dataset to use? There are different ideas on what high quality obs are. Any chance for a lower quality but "consistent" ship dataset so we can test for temporal consistency? Also essential to have some validation data for the period with volcanic eruptions of Pinatubo and El Chichon.

Page 13. Sec4.3.1.2., Will the TAG provide a "blessed" Argo dataset in one location?

viva
podaac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 4:00 pm

Re: Climate Data Records Technical Advisory Group - CDAF Rev

Postby podaac » Thu Apr 03, 2014 12:03 pm

1. Page 6, Section 3.1:
Please elucidate what is meant by "Where multiple missions contribute to the dataset, have the data been hamonised?" Does this mean that multiple mission data sets are to be converted to SST with a similar methodology (eg. Pathfinder) or that SST biases between different satellites have been corrected in the data (eg. ARC ATSR)?

HelenBeggs
podaac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 4:00 pm


Return to GHRSST CDR-TAG forum

cron