Hi Jonathan, Thank you, I'm happy with your suggestions (most likely my misunderstanding of the different names).
For 2 and 3, then integral_wrt_height_of_product_of_eastward_wind_and_specific_humidity integral_wrt_height_of_product_of_northward_wind_and_specific_humidity would be appropriate for the given units I think. Thanks, Malcolm Malcolm Roberts Manager, High resolution global climate modelling; Coordinator, H2020 PRIMAVERA Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB, UK Tel: +44 1392 884537 Fax: +44 1392 885681 email: [email protected] http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/people/malcolm-roberts ________________________________________ From: Jonathan Gregory [[email protected]] Sent: 23 January 2017 15:22 To: Roberts, Malcolm Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Request for 4 new standard names - CMIP6 HighResMIP Dear Malcolm Thanks for your proposals. > 1. prcsh shallow_conv_precipitation_flux This would be better as shallow_convective_precipitation_flux for a standard name, as you have written in your longer description. That would be consistent with existing names containing shallow_convective and shallow_convection. > 2. uqint integrated_eastward_wind_times_humidity > 3. vqint integrated_northward_wind_times_humidity It looks like the CF standard names you propose for these are actually > atmosphere_product_of_eastward_wind_and_specific_humidity > atmosphere_product_of_northward_wind_and_specific_humidity It's true that "atmosphere" is used for some names that refer to the whole column, but in these cases it would be clearer to say explicitly that these are vertical integrals of > product_of_eastward_wind_and_specific_humidity > product_of_northward_wind_and_specific_humidity as is done for some other existing names. This is also because you have to specify what the integration is with respect to, since that affects the units of the quantity. The names could be of the form integral_wrt_X_of_product_of_east|northward_wind_and_specific_humidity What would X be? > 4. wbptemp wet_bulb_potential_temperature That would be fine, I think. Best wishes Jonathan _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
