-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Inconsistent units associated with txxETCCDI variable #83
Comments
A synonymous list would be quick and dirty and would probably do the job since we actually have very few of these. A more comprehensive solution could be using something like pint to test units for comparability (and possibly convertibility). I've done this in |
Got a similar error message for a tn10p dataset: The official definition of tn10p says it's a percentage, so this is more a case of "wrong units" than "multiple names for the same unit". |
Looks like there are four possible unit inconsistencies in the current CE data:
|
For tn10p, tn90p, tx10p, and tx90p, only the data located in the We're not using the |
This issue was fixed for all files in active PCEX useage by normalizing data when climatologies were generated. There are still some contradictory files, but they're legacy PDP files, or files in the redundant and screwy All PCEX datasets now agree on which variables have which units. (Though some of them still have incorrect units, but the incorrect unit appears in all datasets): |
From the logs:
|
I've split this issue into two related issues.
|
Some txxETCCDI files have
degrees_c
as their unit; othersdegC
. The/data
query quite sensibly refuses to construct a timeseries from files with different units, and returns a 500 error.Solutions might be:
degC
/degrees_c
for temperature andmm
/kg d-1 m-2
for precipitation)I haven't investigated thoroughly, and it's possible that this error is actually just a side effect of the
/data
query's present erroneous attempt to construct a timeseries from both nomimal-time and multi-year-mean datasets, in which case this bug will go away when PR 82 is merged.EDIT: PR 82 has been merged, but did not solve this bug.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: