Dear Jonathan, > These look perfect to me: > > ultraviolet_index > > ultraviolet_index_assuming_clear_sky > > For this one > > > ultraviolet_index_assuming_overcast > > I'd suggst overcast_sky
I agree, that is a more precise term. > I think this one > > > ultraviolet_index_assuming_half_cloud_cover > > would be better specified as ultraviolet_index with a scalar coordinate > variable of cloud_area_fraction, especially if there is likely to be a need > for other fractions than 0.5. Can you envisage such a need? Yes, in principle. It is no secret that forecasted cloudiness has some issues and we have discussed moving towards e.g. an indication of 0, 25, 50, 75 and 100% cloudiness. But it all do depend on the validation of forecasted cloudiness in this context. I do also think it is a more precise specification, especially concerning how we do use it today. All the best Øystein -- Dr. Oystein Godoy Norwegian Meteorological Institute P.O.BOX 43, Blindern, N-0313 OSLO, Norway Ph: (+47) 2296 3000 (switchb) 2296 3334 (direct line) Fax:(+47) 2296 3050 Institute home page: http://met.no/ _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
