Dear Alison > Jonathan replied: > > Are you sure we can't call it area? It seems to me it's fine to call it that > > if the coordinates indicate it refers to the whole world (regarded as one > > grid cell) or to some large region (containing an entire ice sheet). > > I certainly agree that it seems more natural to call it > grounded_ice_sheet_area. The definitions of the four existing "X_area" names > say '"X_area" means the horizontal area occupied by X within the grid cell'. > When I made my previous comments I was thinking about summing areas across > multiple grid cells each of which contains a part of the ice sheet, but > actually if the 'grid cell' in this case covers the entire area of the ice > then it's not a problem. Perhaps the definition should be modified to > emphasize that a bit more. Maybe something like: > ' "X_area" means the horizontal area occupied by X within the grid cell. The > extent of an individual grid cell is defined by the horizontal coordinates > and any associated coordinate bounds or by a string valued auxiliary > coordinate variable with a standard name of "region".' Does that sound OK?
Yes, I think that would be fine for this and other area-integral quantities like it. It seems fine to allow "grid cell" to mean any region which can be defined by horizontal coord bounds. > You're right, it should be floating_ice_shelf_area_fraction to be consistent > with the new area type of floating_ice_shelf that we have just introduced for > ISMIP6. I think the terminology changed part way through the conversation and > I neglected to update the standard name. I will create an alias > (floating_ice_sheet_area_fraction -> floating_ice_shelf_area_fraction) and > modify the definition accordingly. This will be included in the next update > of standard names, planned for 21st February. Thanks very much Jonathan _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
