Dear Dirk > >> 5. sea_ice_melt_pond_thickness [m] > >> the volume of water in meltponds divided by meltpond covered area > > > > OK, with a similar cell_methods issue: I think by default this would be > > a local thickness, but it could be described as an area-mean. > > Our definition was simply based on the usual way of representing > melt-pond water in model simulations. However, as this is meant to be a > local thickness, we'd be happy to change the definition to simplyread > "Local thickness of melt ponds"
Perhaps to be clear we could say something like "Thickness of melt pond. The cell_methods indicates whether it is a local thickness, an area-mean thickness or some other statistic." > >> 6. thickness_of_sea_ice_melt_pond_refrozen_ice [m] > >> the volume of refrozen ice in meltponds divided by meltpond covered area > > > > Is this ice floating on top of the meltpond? > > Yes, it is. Do you believe that the definition should be changed? I wasn't clear what the quantity is. We already have a standard name of floating_ice_thickness, of which this is a special case. So we could use the existing name and distinguish this case in cell_methods with "area: mean where sea_ice_melt_pond". Would that be acceptable? > >> 22. sea_ice_specific_x_force_due_to_sea_surface_tilt [N m-2] > >> 23. sea_ice_specific_y_force_due_to_sea_surface_tilt [N m-2] > >> 24. sea_ice_specific_x_force_due_to_coriolis_term [N m-2] > >> 25. sea_ice_spcecific_y_force_due_to_coriolis_term [N m-2] > >> 26. sea_ice_specific_x_force_due_to_internal_forces [N m-2] > >> 27. sea_ice_specific_y_force_due_to_internal_forces [N m-2] > > > > In other N m-2 = Pa names, we use "stress" rather than "specific force" but > > I suppose this is different because they are not fluxes of momentum, but > > divergences of momentum i.e. force per unit mass. Is "specific force" a > > usual term for this? Could we say "coriolis_effect" rather than "term", > > which sounds more algorithmic than geophysical? > > In trying to follow CF_conventions, we adopted "specific" to point out > that these forces are calculated per unit area. We'd be very happy to > drop "specific": > > 26+27 could then simply be referred to as "sea_ice_internal_stress_x" > and "sea_ice_internal_stress_y". > > For 22-25, it would be non-standard in the sea-ice community to call > those "stress", as both coriolis and surface tilt act as body forces. > Standard terminology would be to simply refer to them as > "coriolis_force_on_sea_ice" and "sea_surface_tilt_force", but this is > probably not consistent with CF-conventions as units are force per area. > Do you have any other suggestion of how we could call these "forces per > sea-ice area"? Thanks for explaining. We do already have some standard names with the longer phrase per_unit_area in them, so maybe that would be the best pattern to follow: sea_ice_[xy]_force_per_unit_area_due_to_X where X is sea_surface_tilt, coriolis_effect or internal_stress. Would that be correct and make sense? Best wishes Jonathan _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
