Hi Philip,
Your idea makes sense at least for me.
My bottom line is to avoid being forced to use vertical axis to identify
types of clouds.
One thing: WMO is umbrella for too many programmes. So it is a bit unclear
to specify cloud definitions in operational synoptic meteorology. So
following might be clearer.
SYNOP_high_cloud_area_fraction
SYNOP_middle_cloud_area_fraction
SYNOP_low_cloud_fraction
(Heiko, what do you think? ?)
Eizi
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cameron-smith, Philip" <[email protected]>
To: "Jonathan Gregory" <[email protected]>;
<[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard_name for cloud-cover by phenomenon
Hi All,
I am not wild about using 'type'. I had to read the terms several times
before I figured out what was being meant, because I could read it
different grammatical ways.
A second problem is that it seems a particular definition will be linked
to these terms (or did I miss something?), yet someone might reasonably
want to use a different definition for high/middle/low clouds in the
future.
Although I generally don't like including the origin of the data in the
std_name, I think this may be an exception. I would suggest using either
ISCCP_high_cloud_area_fraction
ISCCP_middle_cloud_area_fraction
ISCCP_low_cloud_fraction
or
WMO_high_cloud_area_fraction
WMO_middle_cloud_area_fraction
WMO_low_cloud_fraction
I note that isccp_cloud_area_fraction is already an accepted std_name, so
the suggestions above follow naturally.
This would also allow changes to the high/middle/low definitions in the
future. This would be a problem if there is a proliferation of
definitions, but I doubt this will be a problem.
Best wishes,
Philip
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Philip Cameron-Smith, [email protected], Lawrence Livermore National Lab.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jonathan Gregory
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 7:10 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard_name for cloud-cover by phenomenon
Dear Heiko
I just had a short side-discussion with Eizi, and we settled on
'type', i.e. we propose the standard names:
high_type_cloud_area_fraction
middle_type_cloud_area_fraction
low_type_cloud_area_fraction
These look fine to me. As you said to John, I hope that "type" would
trigger
people to look up the definition.
Best wishes and thanks
Jonathan
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
