You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Discussion to document oddities in the ACTRIS-EBAS data files.
From email with Paul:
Hi Paul,
while trying to match the the data found in the API and data files to
what I actually need to get to the pyaerocom variable, I found
something that might be wrong:
So in the first example matching standard_names works for my purpose,
but in the second example I have to match the unit in addition.
Stuff like this is not helping in getting an easy to maintain reader
to work. It would be good to have one defined way to find the right
variable
One more thing:
As you know, I have to find a way to search the API for all of our aerocom variable names. So I basically need to find a matching ACTRIS vocabulary for our pyaerocom vocabulary.
For ozone we usually use the unit ppb, but we also have ug m-3.
Looking at the ACTRIS vocabulary, I wonder, why I need to ask the API for ozone mass concentration for both and then select the right netcdf variable while the ACTRIS variable ozone amount fraction seems at first glance a better match to get the ozone data in ppb.
The thing is that the API returns some data asking for ozone amount fraction, but that refers to some French tar files and not to actual EBAS data.
Is that a bug or a feature?
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
-
Discussion to document oddities in the ACTRIS-EBAS data files.
From email with Paul:
Hi Paul,
while trying to match the the data found in the API and data files to
what I actually need to get to the pyaerocom variable, I found
something that might be wrong:
I would have expected the unit for the variable
sulphate_corrected_ug_S_per_m3
to beug S/m3
.Is that a bug or a feature?
standard_names are these:
The background is that I thought I might need to match the unit to what I want.
For instance here:
both units use the same standard_name, but the units are different:
So in the first example matching standard_names works for my purpose,
but in the second example I have to match the unit in addition.
Stuff like this is not helping in getting an easy to maintain reader
to work. It would be good to have one defined way to find the right
variable
Jan
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions