Dear Olivier,
Thank you for your thoughts.
On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 15:43 +0200, olivier lauret wrote:
> Dear Ian,
>
> 48 new standard names is a good score!
Thanks to the good Professor Gregory, who advised me to just go for it!
> A few comments I have in my mind:
> *(T.2), (T.3), (T.5) about 'PME', 'SSH' and 'SSS'
> Maybe we are facing some particular points of CF: until when may we have to
> be intelligible in the standard_name attribute? [a question I often ask to
> myself, I guess the answer is "as possible as it is"..]
I don't know. Personally I prefer PME and SSS etc, but I agree that for
non-specialists jargon like this can be baffling and excluding. Perhaps
in an era of mouse-controlled cutting and pasting there's nothing wrong
with huge standard names involving "_precipitation_minus_evaporation_"
etc. I'm happy to follow the consensus - if there is one.
> For example by 'SSH' you perhaps mean 'sea surface height', and there are 3
> kinds of different sea surface heights in the CF standard name table. What
> kind of SSH would it match? Do you think it changes the meaning of (T3) not
> to mention 'affecting_SSH'? I'm asking this because I am not sure it is..But
> I way be wrong, please tell me.
I didn't know about 3 types of SSH - I'll think about what I mean
precisely and get back to you when I return from vacation in the week
beginning Jul 7th.
> *(T.6)
> Why not 'surface_downward_salt_flux'?
Because I didn't think of it! Your name is briefer and therefore better
- thanks.
> *(T13)
> Good to see it, we have some needs here too with thermocline variables.
Good.
> *(T.15)
> If we refer to what is available in atmosphere ('atmosphere_energy_content'
> etc.) I think your proposal is OK
OK.
> *(U3)
> I am interested in the idea of introducing such 'derivative' terms, good
OK.
> *(U2,V2,W4)
> You are talking about velocity due to eddies; is it the same situation than
> when velocity components are computed from geostrophic balance, with pressure
> gradient equal to Coriolis forces? (Because in that case there are standard
> names for geostrophic velocities)
>
I don't understand. In this context, eddies are residual velocities
after some average velocity has been removed. (This average need not be
the geostrophic velocity - but I'm not sure that's what you meant?)
There's an existing CF standard name of
"northward_heat_flux_due_to_eddy_advection" which is the sort of thing I
meant. Perhaps I should have called it
"x_sea_water_velocity_due_to_eddy_advection" rather than
"..._due_to_eddies"?
Thanks again. I'll get back to you about SSH when I return from annual
leave.
Regards,
Ian.
--
Ian Culverwell B-2-81 Ocean and Sea Ice Modelling
Met Office FitzRoy Road Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)1392 884017 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885861
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.metoffice.gov.uk
Met Office climate change predictions can now be viewed on Google Earth
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/google/
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
