Dear Charlie,
I am certainly open to breaking out the names according to fire type.
The driver behind my proposed standard names
is the GOES-R Advanced Baseline Imager (ABI) Level 2 fire algorithm.
Specifically, the ABI is incapable of discriminating
between different types of fire.
I am new to the business of devising standard names, but I would imagine
that one possible paradigm would be to
follow a convention whereby they are named:
Standard name: X_fire_area
Standard name: X_fire_temperature
Standard Name: X_fire_radiative_power
where 'X' could take on one of three possible values: flaming,
smoldering, or composite. Here, the suggestion of 'composite'
is meant to represent an observation whose measurement is a composite of
flaming and smoldering fires. Since the ABI cannot
identify the type of fire, or if it is a mixture of fire types,
'composite' would seem to be an appropriate term.
Sincerely,
Gary Meehan
On 11/27/2013 6:29 PM, Charlie Zender wrote:
My qualm about these names
Standard Name: fire_area
Standard_Name: fire_temperature
Standard_Name: fire_radiative_power
is there potential ambiguity as to fire type.
Researchers now separately detect and/or estimate
both "active" and "smouldering" fires.
Is it worth breaking-out your names by fire type?
cz
--
Gary Meehan
Senior Staff Scientist
Atmospheric and Environmental Research
131 Hartwell Avenue, Lexington, MA 02421-3126
Tel (781) 761-2228 • Fax (781) 761-2299
e-mail: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
