Dear CF community:
About a month ago, I submitted a new standard name for the
"land_surface_skin_temperature." While I think the consensus is now
that this new name seems acceptable for inclusion in the CF database,
there were some comments and suggestions by various people who pointed
out that the proposed definition for this quantity could use some more
clarification and other comments which pointed out similarities to the
current name "surface_temperature." I've attempted to address both of
these concerns by adding another line to the definition which better
defines what the "land_surface_skin" is. My hope is that this clears up
some uncertainty about this quantity (e.g. it is not simply the bare
land surface but also includes various media above the land surface) and
also illustrates that it is not the same thing as the
"surface_temperature" quantity (which I understand as idealized,
infinitesimally thin interface temperature between the air and land/sea
and not the observable quantity that the "land_surface_skin_temperature"
proposes to be).
With this is mind, here is my latest attempt at this new name/definition:
Standard Name: land_surface_skin_temperature
Definition:The land surface skin temperature is the aggregate
temperature of the "land surface skin," which is the portion of the land
surface which emits infrared radiation directly to space through the
atmosphere.The "land surface skin" is defined as an effective layer
which includes the upper boundary of the land combined with additional
layers which may cover the upper land boundary (e.g. vegetation,
puddles, snow, ice, man-made objects).
Canonical Units:K
Sincerely,
Jonathan
On 6/20/2013 7:56 AM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
Dear Karl
Like Roy, I don't think we should deprecate sea_surface_skin_temperature.
Although I cannot remember the arguments - which must be apparent in the
mailing list archive - I do recall that it was a careful and long discussion
with Craig which led to the introduction of the various SST names.
Therefore adding land_surface_skin_temperature seems fine to me if there is
a need to be precise about this as an observable quantity, which relates
to a particular layer, even though it's very thin. The definition should note
that if this precise meaning is not intended, the name surface_temperature
could be used, which strictly refers to the temperature at the interface.
Best wishes
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
