Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of Ticket #152, comment 19


Ignore:
Timestamp:
11/22/16 09:30:46 (2 years ago)
Author:
martin.juckes
Comment:

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • Ticket #152, comment 19

    initial v1  
    11Hello Karl, Jonathan,
    22
    3 I've copid Karl's proposed text into the ticket .. I thought it might make the discussion easier. I've also split it into 3 parts .. (1) modification of existing text, (2) modification of example 7.6 caption, (3) new text. The last is a variation on my original submission .. expanded.
     3I've copied Karl's proposed text into the ticket .. I thought it might make the discussion easier. I've also split it into 3 parts .. (1) modification of existing text, (2) modification of example 7.6 caption, (3) new text. The last is a variation on my original submission .. expanded.
    44
    55I'm happy with with the first two of these parts. For the 3rd part, I see an ambiguity between the text saying "the interpretation more generally is that a “weighted” mean is reported" and the first example (area: mean where sea_ice time: mean) which I would not interpret as a weighted mean. This latter interpretation is supported by Jonathan's last comment, but it is not, I think, consistent with the bracketted part of Karl's text about dealing with time series when sea_ice is completely absent for part of the time period. In such cases, I would interpret `area: mean where sea_ice` as yielding a time series with some missing values, when sea_ice is completely absent, and `time: mean` would then also give a missing value. The construct `area: mean where sea_ice time: mean where sea_ice` would be needed to average over the portions of the time series for which sea ice is present,