Odele,
If the _at_1au suffix is left off, I think we should definitely have the
distance of the reference surface provided as a coordinate variable as
Jonathan suggested. That would provide the most flexible definition for
future use, so we don't have to add yet another standard name if someone
comes along that wants to have a reference surface at 1 light year or 2
solar radii, etc.
Grace and peace,
Jim
On 5/15/15 11:30 AM, Odele Coddington wrote:
Hi all,
I had hesitated to chime in so late in the email exchange. But, as the
keeper of the CDR, here’s my take on it.
I would highly be in favor of Jim Biard’s suggested names (with or
without the _at_1au suffix). As Judith mentioned, there’s no time
like the present to educate people. I don’t see any compelling reason
why the standard names of the CF group should differ from the standard
names of constants, units and uncertainty by the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST), or the UK equivalent of NIST, with
definitions supported by the International System of Units (SI). For
that reason, and despite what the convention of usage is in the CF
program, I can’t support the usage of ‘radiative_flux’ for irradiance,
because the units are simply incorrect.
I note that the SI system, which has an international governing
authority, “/modifies the SI as necessary //to reflect the latest
advances in science and technology/”
(http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/international.html).
Surely, conventions can change since constants certainly have!
Therefore, I support these name possibilities (with or without the
_at_1au suffix, as this can be adequately explained in the
definition). II highly favor the first pair:
solar_irradiance
solar_irradiance_per_unit_wavelength
solar_radiative_flux_density
solar_radiative_flux_density_per_unit_wavelength
Best regards,
Odele Coddington
From: Judith Lean <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Friday, May 15, 2015 at 9:00 AM
To: Jonathan Gregory <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>, Jim Biard <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>,
"[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, Odele
Coddington <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>, Peter Pilewskie
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>, Daniel Wunder - NOAA
Affiliate <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>,
"[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New standard name requests for TSI and SSI
Dear Jonathan and JIm,
I guess the argument favoring Jonathan’s terminology is that the
public/non-experts will understand solar radiative flux (density) more
readily than they will know what irradiance means…
I actually find this myself when speaking with reporters and giving
public lectures, for example - they prefer not to use the word
irradiance since they - nor their audience - are familiar with tit.
Solar radiation or brightness conveys more meaning to them, and I do
tend to use these words more than irradiance.
Having said that - theres no time like the present to educate people.
Hence, I am happy with either of these “common” names. Thanks to you
both for “designing”them for us.
Judith
ps
Odele - what do you think? ..you’re the keeper of the CDR!
Dan and Phil- from a NOAA perspective do you have a preference?
On May 15, 2015, at 10:33 AM, Peter Pilewskie
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I prefer irradiance. This is the solar */irradiance/* climate data
record, after all!
Peter
On May 15, 2015, at 8:20 AM, "Jonathan Gregory"
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Dear Judith and Jim
Thanks for sticking with this process, Judith, though it may be hard
work.
Thanks for your ideas, Jim. I largely agree with your arguments and
so largely
reach the same conclusions. There are two points on which we differ.
* I prefer radiative_flux[_density] to irradiance because they mean
the same,
essentially, as far as I can see, so it's better to use a phrase we
already
have, for consistency. If we use a different one it might cause
people to
suppose it's a different quantity. We do have standard_names for
spherical_
irradiance, but that's not the same thing, and radiance is different
too -
it has different physical dimensions.
* I didn't suggest _at_1au (or something like it) because it looks
like a
coordinate, and we don't put coordinates in standard names. But, now
I say
that, I wonder whether we should actually treat it as a coordinate.
Could we
not simply say, in the definition, that this quantity applies at a
distance of
one astronomical unit from the sun by default, but if a different
distance is
intended, a coordinate variable of distance_from_sun (for instance -
we need a
new standard name for it) should be supplied. That's a CF-like
treatment.
Best wishes
Jonathan
--
CICS-NC <http://www.cicsnc.org/> Visit us on
Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/cicsnc> *Jim Biard*
*Research Scholar*
Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites NC <http://cicsnc.org/>
North Carolina State University <http://ncsu.edu/>
NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information <http://ncdc.noaa.gov/>
/formerly NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center/
151 Patton Ave, Asheville, NC 28801
e: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
o: +1 828 271 4900
/We will be updating our social media soon. Follow our current Facebook
(NOAA National Climatic Data Center
<https://www.facebook.com/NOAANationalClimaticDataCenter> and NOAA
National Oceanographic Data Center <https://www.facebook.com/noaa.nodc>)
and Twitter (@NOAANCDC <https://twitter.com/NOAANCDC> and @NOAAOceanData
<https://twitter.com/NOAAOceanData>) accounts for the latest information./
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
