Dear Sara That makes sense to me. Given what the guidelines say, maybe we should change thunderstorm_probability to probability_of_thundstorm. It is the only existing probability standard name, I see.
Best wishes Jonathan ----- Forwarded message from Hörnquist Sara <[email protected]> ----- > Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 11:40:59 +0000 > From: Hörnquist Sara <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: [CF-metadata] New standard name for probability of cloud > > Dear all, > > I'd like to suggest "probability_of_cloud", alternatively > "cloud_probability", as a new standard name. > > There is a demand from many users (e.g. from the producers of sea surface > temperatures, SST) to shift from a binary cloud mask in satellite derived > products to a cloud mask expressed as a cloud probability. This would better > account for uncertainties in the derived cloud information and would allow > for that those uncertainties can be used in downstream processing for > assessing the impacts on other products (like SST). > > The new standard nam should follow the structure of > 'thunderstorm_probability': > "probability_of_X" means the chance that X is true or of at least one > occurrence of X. Space and time coordinates must be used to indicate the area > and time-interval to which a probability applies. > > The unit should be either 'percent' or '1'. > > Best regards, > Sara Hornquist > _______________________________________________ > CF-metadata mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata ----- End forwarded message ----- _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
