On 26/11/14 17:52, [email protected] wrote:
Dear Maarten,
Thank you for your proposals. I have now created entries for them in the
standard
names editor at
http://cfeditor.ceda.ac.uk/proposals/1?status=active&namefilter=&proposerfilter=Maarten&descfilter=&unitfilter=&yearfilter=&filter+and+display=Filter,
so they certainly will not be lost. (At the moment they appear with blue
headings
to indicate that they are new proposals - I wanted to demonstrate this feature
of
the editor - but I will shortly change their status to "Under Discussion"). By
proposing your names to the list they are already "in the process" so now it is
a
case of responding to any further comments as they arise. Names are formally
accepted when consensus has been reached on the terms themselves, the
definitions
and units. Once accepted, they are automatically included in the next update of
the standard name table.
I have given my detailed comments on the individual proposals and your
additional
questions below.
1. toa_incoming_photon_solar_irradiance_per_unit_wavelength
I agree with Jonathan's comment that "solar" is not really necessary and you
have
indicated that it is OK to remove it, so we would then have
toa_incoming_photon_irradiance_per_unit_wavelength.
Taking your own definition and adapting the wording slightly for consistency
with
existing "toa_incoming" and "irradiance" names I arrived at the following:
"toa" means top of atmosphere. The TOA incoming photon irradiance is the photon
flux from the sun on a surface perpendicular to the incoming radiation i.e. the
"downwelling" flux. In accordance with common usage in geophysical disciplines,
"flux" implies per unit area, called "flux density" in physics. A coordinate
variable for radiation wavelength should be given the standard name
radiation_wavelength. A photon flux is specified in terms of numbers of photons
expressed in moles.
Canonical unit: mol m-2 m-1 s-1
As it stands, this looks fine and could probably be accepted for inclusion in
the
standard name table straight away. However, you included some notes about the
coordinate variable and unit which need some further consideration. I'll address
the units issues first, as these are the easiest to answer!
Hi,
I just noticed that the status of this proposal is still "Active (not on list or
rejected)". Shouldn't ehy have been marked "Under discussion" by now?
Best,
Maarten Sneep
--
KNMI
T: 030 2206747
E: [email protected]
R: A2.14
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
