Dear All,
Thank you to everyone who has submitted comments about these names.
Rather than send lots of separate replies I am using this message to
respond to everyone in turn.
1. sea_water_temperature
John Graybeal wrote:
(b) sea_water_temperature
There is agreement to retain the standard name sea_water_temperature
as this is useful particularly for observations. It currently has no
explanatory text. In response to the discussion I propose to add the
following sentence: 'Sea temperature is the in situ (bulk) temperature
of the sea water, not the surface or skin temperature.'
In the proposed definition, do you mean to say 'Sea water temperature
is ...' ?
Yes, I agree that is much better.
Craig Donlon wrote:
Please do not use the word bulk when referring to sst. The correct term
is SSTdepth. This was extensively discussed previously
The word bulk crept in because I had based the text on the definition of
air_temperature. The only significance of the word, I think, is to make
the distinction from skin temperature and in the case of
sea_water_temperature I don't think it's needed, so I will remove it.
Roy Lowry wrote:
I have a concern with your exclusion of the surface from the term
sea_water_temperature. What Standard Name would you use for the
temperature data stream in a CTD profile that extends from the surface
to depth? I'm more comfortable with the idea of keeping
sea_water_temperature vague so it can include a mixture of surface and
within water body measurements, but making the SST terms explicitly
exclude temperatures within the water body.
Jonathan Gregory wrote:
Since this is a very general term, maybe we can leave it vague (and
thus sidestep
the need to define surfaces). It is the in-situ temperature of sea
water. SST is
a species of sea_water_temperature. It is analogous to air_temperature.
Thanks to both of you for pointing this out - I hadn't intended to
exclude surface/near surface values from profiles but I can see how my
explanation might have been interpreted to mean that.
Following all the comments, I propose that the text for
sea_water_temperature should be: ' "Sea water temperature" is the in situ
temperature of the sea water. To specify the depth at which the
temperature applies use a vertical coordinate variable or scalar
coordinate variable. There are standard names for
sea_surface_temperature, sea_surface_skin_temperature,
sea_surface_subskin_temperature and sea_surface_foundation_temperature
which can be used to describe data located at the specified surfaces.' Is
that better?
Paul Durack has sent me a preview of some additional text regarding
temperature scales used for observations over the years. I think that
text could easily be appended to the above. I understand that Paul is in
the process of preparing revised proposals for many of the teos-10
descriptions which he will post to the list in due course.
2. Existing salinity names
John Graybeal wrote:
Regarding the existing salinity quantities, the straightforward
conclusion (though not implementation) is to make parallel changes to
those quantities, and add parallel quantities at least for
sea_water_practical_salinity, on the assumption that the users of the
original quantities would need the replacement and practical is a
likely replacement (I'm guessing here).
However, to a degree this violates the 'wait for demand' principal of
CF. A solution might be to put out the question, for each original
quantity together with each new salinity (practical, absolute,
preformed) "Do you need this value, and if so, would you suggest a
correction to the definition?" Those with the needs could check the
appropriate boxes, and you could backfill any others that are needed
later.
Jonathan Gregory wrote:
I think these terms can remain vague too. In their vagueness, they are
parallel to sea_water_salinity, which we are retaining, though
deprecating for
future obs quantities, and models where applicable. If salinity is
generic,
these generic quantities can also be used for specific purposes. When
it
becomes necessary to be specific about *which* salinity is meant by
e.g.
product_of_northward_sea_water_velocity_and_salinity
then a new specific standard name can be defined. We could modify the
definitions to say that they can be used with any definition of
salinity
(but specific ones could be proposed if required to make distinctions).
I think John is right that we shouldn't introduce a lot of new names
where there isn't a clear need. My major concern was to make sure the
descriptions of the existing names make sense in relation to the new
TEOS-10 names, which means that we need to decide if they should be
regarded as generic salinity quantities (I think they should), or
practical salinity, or whatever. We need to be clear about these
definitions regardless of whether we introduce further names
corresponding to all the precisely defined salinities. I agree with
Jonathan's suggestion of adding some text to emphasise the fact that the
salinity is generic in the existing names. I think there is a case for
adding a new sea_surface_practical_salinity name as remotely sensed
observations of this quantity have been referred to during the discussion
of the teos-10 proposals.
3. New teos-10 names
As I alluded to above, Paul Durack is in the process of revising the
descriptions of the new names based on comments from Trevor, Rainer and
others in the oceanographic community who are not subscribed to the CF
mailing list. I don't want to comment any further on the new names until
Paul has had time to post his proposals.
Best wishes,
Alison
------
Alison Pamment Tel: +44 1235 778065
NCAS/British Atmospheric Data Centre Email: [email protected]
STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
R25, 2.22
Harwell Oxford, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
--
Scanned by iCritical.
