>> I think that the name should encode the method if the result is
>> sensitive to the method.
> Here there be dragons. Can it be said that this is not a different
> measurement of the same thing, but a measurement of a different
> property?
Yes. Kris says it is not adjusted to be a "true" cloud-top height
estimate so it should not be labeled to appear as such.
> If you go this route, a perhaps clearer option for the name is
> suggested by an existing pattern:
> height_at_cloud_top_defined_by_infrared_radiation
Although I like this better than what I proposed, it still needs work.
> This has the added benefit that it puts the emphasis on what is
> being measured, rather than the act of measuring ('retrieval').
Agreed
Without knowing more about their algorithm, it sounds like what LARC
retrieves and wishes to archive, is (approximately) the geometric
height above the surface that is one optical depth (at 11 um) from the
cloud top (as defined by visible/lidar techniques). This could be
called the "effective height" since a preponderance of the captured
photons will have the blackbody temperature signature of the
atmosphere at this height. So, I would splice-in "effective"
height_at_effective_cloud_top_defined_by_infrared_radiation
although I could live with
height_at_cloud_top_defined_by_infrared_radiation
I think practioners in the field would better understand
the meaning of the former than the latter.
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
