Jonathan Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: >> Do we get enough benefit by "standardizing" them >> [area-type names] to offset the cost in time and trouble >> of the growth of yet another complex name hierarchy? (I >> know. Some people will say "Yes!" I just have to ask.) > >It's a fair question. I am one of those who would say >"Yes"! If it turns out that this becomes a large problem >which we can't deal with effectively, we will have to think >again. So far that has not happened.
Hi all, I would be one who says "No"; I think the area_types system is too restrictive, and that we should move away from standardized names for surface classifications. (I do have a replacement scheme in mind that I would like to float, once I'm not frantically helping revise a paper.) But rather than argue the case abstractly, let me propose a test case that I think will allow us to answer the question *experimentally*. I actually have data on hand that I've been pondering how to properly represent under CF. These are the different land-type classifications used by the land-surface models (NOAH, BATS, and MOSES) that are part of the regional climate models we work with. I don't know much about these classes other than which model they're coming from, and that they should be stored with a standard_name of "land_cover". Attached below are the 93 unique values for surface types from these 3 models. If it looks like we could hash out the details and extend the existing area_types list could be extended to cover this list in fairly short order, then I think we can say that the current system will be sufficient. If it's a bigger job than that, then I don't think it's adequate. Does that seem like a fair test? (And note, there's a fourth land-surface model that I don't have data from. I expect that when I do get it, I'll have another list of around 20-40 land types to reconcile with / add to the existing list. So proposed additions will likely come in big chunks like this, not one or two at a time.) Cheers, --Seth McGinnis Land-cover types used by land-surface models in NARCCAP: arable cropland bare ground tundra barren or sparsely vegetated bog or marsh cane sugar coffee cotton crop/mixed farming cropland/grassland mosaic cropland/woodland mosaic deciduous broadleaf forest deciduous broadleaf tree deciduous needleleaf forest deciduous needleleaf tree deciduous shrub deciduous tree crops (temperate) dense deciduous broadleaf forest dense deciduous needleleaf forest dense drought deciduous forest dense evergreen broadleaf forest dense mixed evergreen + deciduous forest dense needleleaf evergreen forest desert dry farm arable dryland cropland and pasture dwarf shrub (tundra transition + high altitude wasteland) equatorial rain forest equatorial tree crop evergreen broadleaf evergreen broadleaf cropland evergreen broadleaf shrub evergreen broadleaf tree evergreen broadleaf woodland evergreen needleleaf evergreen needleleaf tree evergreen shrub forest/field mosaic grassland herbaceous tundra herbaceous wetland ice ice cap/glacier inland water irrigated crop irrigated cropland irrigated cropland and pasture maize mangrove (tree swamp) mixed dryland/irrigated cropland and pasture mixed forest mixed shrubland/grassland mixed tundra mixed woodland nursery + market gardening ocean open deciduous broadleaf woodland open deciduous needleleaf woodland open drought deciduous woodland open mixed evergreen + deciduous woodland open needleleaf evergreen forest open tropical woodland open water paddy rice pasture + shrub pasture + tree rough grazing + shrub sand desert + barren land savanna semi arid rough grazing semi desert + scattered trees semi-desert short grass shrub desert + semi desert shrubland snow or ice tall grass tea temperate meadow + permanent pasture temperate rough grazing thorn shrub tropical broadleaf forest (slight seasonality) tropical grassland + shrub tropical pasture tropical savanna (grassland + tree) tundra urban urban and built-up land vineyard water and land mixture water bodies wooded tundra wooden wetland woodland + shrub _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
