Hi Kris, Try to pick a name that matches what the algorithm retrieves. What you have described seems much closer to an effective cloud top height for 11 um photons. So first I would replace the word "center" with something like "top".
As you note, satellites traditionally use IR techniques to estimate cloud height. Does your product differ in practice from what some now store as height_at_cloud_top? If not, use that name. It seems like your intent is to be more precise and explicitly recognize the radiative basis of the height measurement. And I laud that because height depends on how it's measured/defined: Clouds become optically thick sooner in the IR than the visible, so visible photons might lead to a retrieval of ten to a few hundred meters (depending on condensate concentration) less in height than IR photons. Lidar is an example of a visible technique. Many models define clouds with a condensate concentration threshold. I think that the name should encode the method if the result is sensitive to the method. Possibly your retrieval algorithm already corrects for sensitivity to the method (e.g., to estimate a "wavelength-independent" height). Others will say this sensitivity to method is a given and should not be reflected in the name... If you want all that reflected in a new name, then maybe something along these lines for your quantity: height_at_radiative_cloud_top height_at_retreived_cloud_top height_at_IR_radiative_cloud_top height_at_IR_retrieved_cloud_top height_at_thermal_cloud_top height_at_11um_retrieved_cloud_top height_at_infrared_retrieved_cloud_top I prefer the last suggestion. Others with more experience at CF name construction might improve on these with this as background. Best, c -- Charlie Zender, Earth System Sci. & Computer Sci. University of California, Irvine 949-891-2429 )'( _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
