Dear Fran
Thanks for this. I probably didn't notice before that this one
> sea_water_to_direction_due_to_tides
is like this one
> sea_water_to_direction_at_sea_floor
and therefore also would benefit from the insertion of "velocity".
Best wishes
Jonathan
cf-metadata-requ...@cgd.ucar.edu
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > cf-metadata-ow...@cgd.ucar.edu
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of CF-metadata d
Dear Marcelo
These look fine to me, thanks. Just to be clear - you're *not* proposing
at_bottom, are you? I agree with you that at_sea_floor would be the right
phrase to use.
Best wishes
Jonathan
- Forwarded message from Marcelo Andrioni
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: [CF-metadata]
Dear Daniel
> Does "Parametric Vertical Coordinates" mean that there is a mathematical
> function, which describes the relation between the relevant (auxiliary)
> coordinate variables and the parametric vertical coordinate?
In section 4.3.3, it means that the physical vertical coordinate
Dear Alison
Thanks for your careful consideration. I have a couple of comments.
* I too think either shortwave_flux or solar_irradiance would be OK. Maybe
irradiance gets the purpose better for this name.
* I can recall a couple of reasons for the phrase surface_snow: (i) to
distinguish snow in
Dear all
I am delighted to tell you (as you may already know) that Karl Taylor, who is
the chair of the CF governance panel and the CF committee, has been elected a
Fellow of the AGU. This is a richly deserved award, which recognises Karl's
immense contribution to climate science, both through
Dear Daniel
I assume you mean a data variable which has strings describing quality or
status states, probably encoded with flag_values and flag_meanings. Would
the flag_meanings be meaningful to a human reading them? If so, you could
regard the file as self-describing. Self-describing doesn't
Dear Lars
I think that using a flag_value would be a good CF way to do this. I am not
sure whether it's a good idea to choose a value which is outside the valid
range. That's not a problem for CF (that is, it's not prohibited), but maybe
it might not suit some software, which could object if it
Here are the links again, with http:
http://www.met.rdg.ac.uk/~jonathan/CF_metadata/constitution.adoc
http://www.met.rdg.ac.uk/~jonathan/CF_metadata/constitution.html
Dear Daniel
> In discussions last year and in advance of the upcoming CF meeting at ESIP,
> several colleagues have put forth
Dear Daniel
> In discussions last year and in advance of the upcoming CF meeting at ESIP,
> several colleagues have put forth the idea that the CF governance process
> could be enhanced. I have put together a few concrete ideas of what to do
> here in order to have a concrete item that we can
wishes
Jonathan
- Forwarded message from Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC
-
> Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 08:43:33 +
> From: Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC
> To: Jonathan Gregory , "cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu"
>
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Indices or Labels as Coordinate
Tel:
> +44 1235 778065
> NCAS/Centre for Environmental Data AnalysisEmail:
> alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk
> STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> R25, 2.22
> Harwell Oxford, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: CF-metadata On Beh
nt Tel:
> +44 1235 778065
> NCAS/Centre for Environmental Data Analysis Email:
> alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk
> STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> R25, 2.22
> Harwell Oxford, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
>
>
> -
for Environmental Data AnalysisEmail:
> alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk
> STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> R25, 2.22
> Harwell Oxford, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: CF-metadata On Behalf Of Taylor,
> Karl E.
> Sent: 06 Ma
I STFC
> To: Jonathan Gregory , "cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu"
>
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Missing data bins in histograms
>
> Dear Jonathan,
>
>
> OK, flagged-dimension-array approach is certainly a more compact
> representation than my previous proposal (
9 14:34:48 +
> From: Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC
> To: Jonathan Gregory , "cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu"
>
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Missing data bins in histograms
>
> Dear Jonathan,
>
>
> Sorry, I think I misunderstood the scope of valid usage of &
to recognise both versions.
Best wishes
Jonathan
- Forwarded message from Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC
-
> Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 09:03:19 +
> From: Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC
> To: Jonathan Gregory , "cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu"
>
> Subject: Re: [CF-me
tes are allowed for
>
> coordinate variables - it has just "D" in the "Use" column. This is not an
>
> argument why they shouldn't be if there is a need, but they weren't introduced
>
> with that in mind. The use which you suggested for Martin's case
du/pipermail/cf-metadata/2016/date.html#18984>
> > [ thread
> > ]<http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/2016/thread.html#18984><http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/2016/thread.html#18984>
> > [ subject
> > ]<http://mailman.cgd.ucar
y weren't
> >introduced
> >
> >with that in mind. The use which you suggested for Martin's case is a good
> >
> >idea, but I think it would need a change to the convention.
> >
> >
> >
> >Best wishes
> >
> >
>
Dear all
I should have noticed that we already have a guideline about
product_of_X_and_Y, which should also apply to covariance, correlation, and
any other commutative function of X and Y:
If X and Y are both scalars or both components of vectors, they
are put in alphabetical order. If one of
_
> From: CF-metadata on behalf of Taylor,
> Karl E.
> Sent: 10 May 2019 00:16:55
> To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Fwd: Fwd: Re: Standard name of isobaric zonal mean
> eddy meridional temperature advection
>
> With that fix, I'm happy with Jonat
Dear Martin et al.
Is it sum_x (v'(x) T'(x)) where v'=v-avg_x(v), similarly for T, and x is
longitude? In that case I think it would be neat to describe it as a
covariance, which like "product" doesn't attribute a physical meaning to it.
Could it be called
Actually it should be northward_wind, not northward_velocity.
- Forwarded message from Jonathan Gregory -
> PS: Michaela sent another suggestion while I was composing that email:
>
>
> covariance_of_northward_velocity_and_temperature .. which could work, though
> I
Dear Martin
OK. Thanks for explaining and sorry I didn't notice the correct point. I am
happy then.
Best wishes
Jonathan
On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 12:26:40PM +, Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC wrote:
> Date: Thu, 9 May 2019 12:26:40 +
> From: Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC
> To: Jonatha
Dear Martin and Alison
Thank you for carefully pursuing this detailed discussion. The degree of
consistency which Martin remarked upon initially is encouraging, but it's also
evident that we have to work very hard to achieve that, and any tools that we
can put in place to make it easier (as
Dear David
I think the CF data model should be a separate document because it's
independent of netCDF, so it doesn't belong uniquely in a netCDF conventions
document. If CF was embodied in other formats, as we have often discussed
(JSON, zarr), the data model would apply equally to them as to
; >
> > regards,
> > Karl
> >
> > On 2/7/19 8:57 AM, Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC wrote:
> >> Dear Jonathan,
> >>
> >> Thanks, that justification will be helpful in replying to people.
> >>
> >> To summarise, the propo
Dear all
Thanks for your contributions and support. We have taken note of reservations
expressed and will try to mitigate them. No-one has said they'd drop out if we
move to GitHub, while several have emphasised advantages, so I think that the
decision has been made to try it. David Hassell will
Dear Roy
> You're right about hcc140a - I'd missed that because of the hyphen in the
> IUPAC name trichloro-ethane. In my view the hyphen doesn't belong there (try
> googling trichloro-ethane) if the IUPAC standard is strictly followed -
> should be trichloroethane. If others agree maybe we
; > Your assessment is sound in my eyes and I think these changes will bring
> > substantial benefits. Thanks for the hard work and attention to detail.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Daniel
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: CF-metadata On Behalf Of
> >
Dear Mike and Klaus
Thanks for your emails. I understand your points, but it seems to me that what
we have proposed will not make life significantly more difficult. Specifically,
(1) We propose to have one discuss repository taking over all the functions
of the current email list, which is for
200
> From: Chris Barker - NOAA Federal
> To: Daniel Lee
> Cc: Jonathan Gregory , "cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu"
>
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] proposed migration of these discussions to GitHub
>
> I’m a big gitHub fan. But:
>
>
> >>
Dear all
As you know, CF currently uses this email list for discussion of standard name
proposals and all other matters except for proposals to change the conventions.
For the latter, we have been using trac for years, but have recently completed
migration of that function to GitHub. The source
Dear Bob
That looks logical to me. It is usual to provide standard names for different
choices of sign convention. Thanks.
Best wishes
Jonathan
- Forwarded message from Robert Fratantonio
-
> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 21:04:37 +
> From: Robert Fratantonio
> To:
Dear Bert
> Since the geometries discussion seems to have finalized, we would like to use
> the Geometries described in the cf-conventions GitHub repository at
> https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/blob/master/ch07.adoc#geometries
>
> However, I'm a bit confused about the formal
Dear Karl
In answer to your other question, yes, the computed_standard_name should be
an attribute of the vertical coordinate variable, as well as the standard_name,
as shown in Example 4.3.
Best wishes
Jonathan
- Forwarded message from Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC
-
> Date: Thu, 7 Mar
>
> '"Dianeutral mixing" refers to mixing across surfaces of neutral bouyancy.
> "Parameterized" means the part due to a scheme representing processes which
> are not explicitly resolved by the model.'
>
> regards,
> Martin
>
>
>
>
standard names. I wonder what you all think.
Best wishes
Jonathan
- Forwarded message from Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC
-
> Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2019 21:40:02 +0000
> From: Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC
> To: Jonathan Gregory , "cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu"
>
> Subj
gt;
> or does "mesoscale" imply "eddy" and for that reason "eddy" can be removed?
> If "mesocale eddy advection" and mesocale advection" are not identical, we
> could leave the already defined variables as is and add a companion set with
> &qu
Dear Alison, Martin et al.
I have noticed that several of the new ocean tendency diagnostics we have
added to the standard name table for CMIP6 contain "eddy", but should not do.
The word "eddy" should appear only in parameterized_eddy_advection, not in
mesoscale advection, mesoscale diffusion,
, doi:
> > 10.1017/S003382223672.'
> >
> > Does that sound okay?
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Alison
> >
> > ---
> > Alison Pamment
est wishes
Jonathan
- Forwarded message from "Lowry, Roy K." -
> Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 15:24:06 +0000
> From: "Lowry, Roy K."
> To: Jonathan Gregory , "cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu"
>
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New standard name for 14CO2
>
&g
eb 2019 14:31:58 +
> From: "Robert M. Key"
> To: Katherine Pugsley
> CC: "Lowry, Roy K." , Jonathan Gregory
> , "cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu"
>
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New standard name for 14CO2
>
> What Katherine listed is
Regarding the units of 'per mil', the canonical unit in the standard name
> table would be written as '1e-6'.
>
> Whichever terminology we choose, certainly we do need a clear definition - in
> particular if the quantity is being calculated with reference to a particular
> stan
Dear all
I agree with Roy that delta-14C is not a mole fraction, but a way of expressing
the deviation of an isotopic ratio in a sample from a standard isotopic ratio.
The definition Roy gives for delta-13C is shown in several websites. I think
we need the precise definition of the quantity being
uot;. It is evaluated as the area of interest divided
> by the grid cell area, scaled for the units chosen.
>
>
> I still feel that there is a case for changing the name to, for example,
> "relative_area" in order to reduce confusion caused by people who assum
Dear all
While I sympathise with the problem, I too think that we shouldn't include
carbon in the units. In CF and the standard names we have always kept the
meaning of the quantity out of the units.
Clearly it's important for the data to be correct, but that applies to every-
thing requested by
Dear Martin
I'd rather we retained "fraction" in the standard name, because it's always
been there, it's used in other contexts in a consistent way, and there isn't
anything actually incorrect with it, as you say. Could we instead add a note
to the definitions pointing out that percent is
New reflectance standard names
>
> Hello Jonathan Gregory (and CF board):
>
> I work for the GOES-R satellite project, and I have been revisiting some
> proposed standard names that were previously submitted by people who work
> for GOES-R but the proposals did not reach the fina
in this variable were interpreted as a rate, it would be
> completely incorrect; values
> that are unchanging convert to a rate of 0, no matter how high they may be.
>
> Maybe I've been mis-using this standard name?
>
> Thanks - Nan
>
>
>
>
> On 1/24/19 9:34
Dear Lars
> 1. If I have (observed) daily precipitation with unit mm/day and want to
> store this in a CF compliant file, should I use standard name
> --- "lwe_thickness_of_precipitation_amount" with canonical unit metre and the
> "per day" part is inferred from the time bounds, or
> ---
Dear Matthias
> While I can provide (scalar) lat/lon that would be something like the
> section mid-point, and proper cell_bounds with these, the result is that
> the user then knows a lat/lon box where my data are from. The user does
> not yet know which ones of the box vertices are my actual
Dear Matthias
> Recap: I have a time series of ocean volume transport (given in
> Sverdrup) across a line. The line has two end points, and the transport
> is computed over a specific depth range. I would like to represent this
> in a clever way in a netcdf file with CF conventions.
>
> As far
Dear Roy
It's also fine to discuss things on the email list. GitHub is replacing trac
as the platform for proposals to change the convention.
> I totally disagree with this statement, which was similar to the one I
> received a couple of years ago. The way names should be defined should be
>
Dear all
I too think it's fine to have a standard name for sea water temperature
anomaly. While I understand the concern about potentially huge numbers of
anomaly standard names, I don't think we need to deal with it by any other
means at present because very few have been proposed. There are
Dear Martin
> The discussion of a machine-readable document with details of rules related
> to specific standard names is here: https://cf-trac.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/153
> . It has been quiet for some time. The dB issues could be covered there, as
> you say. There is a difference in that the
and_ice', i.e., we know what *area* they cover, but do (at least some of
> them) also include the overlying snow? This question affects names such as
> tendency_of_change_in_land_ice_amount - does it include the mass of the snow
> plus ice, or strictly the ice? These questions haven't arisen
Dear Martin
Your points are good ones and have been raised before. More than once we have
talked about maintaining a CF version of the udunits definition to include dB
and sverdrup, or ask udunits to add them (if they're not there). dB is a dimen-
sionless unit, equivalent to 1. I suggest that
09:53:59 +
> From: Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC
> To: "Taylor, Karl E." , "cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu"
> , Jonathan Gregory
>
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] ice_sheet/land_ice confusion
>
> Dear Karl, Jonathan,
>
>
> I appreci
-
> Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 16:33:28 +
> From: Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC
> To: Jonathan Gregory , "cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu"
>
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] 'months since' and 'years since' time units
>
> Dear Jonathan,
>
>
> I think you could g
Dear all
This is an interesting discussion, and I agree that's a tricky subject. If only
we could have a well-behaved Earth which orbited the sun in an integral and
easily factorisable number of days!
So far I still think that we should not change the way we interpret the units
string. It's in
gt; ice_and_snow_on_land.
>
> Best wishes,
> Alison
>
> --
> Alison Pamment Tel: +44 1235 778065
> NCAS/Centre for Environmental Data ArchivalEmail:
> alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk
> STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> R25, 2.22
changed to an albedo of snow on land, hence this area type
> is not used.
>
> regards,
> Martin
>
> From: CF-metadata on behalf of Taylor,
> Karl E.
> Sent: 17 October 2018 05:38
> To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: Re: [CF-me
of the three terms under discussion here was used:
> "land_ice" (in the standard_name "land_ice_area_fraction"), which was
> described as "fraction of grid cell occupied by "permanent" ice (i.e.,
> glaciers)." This was a "fixed" (time-indepe
from Karl Taylor -
> Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 11:44:53 -0700
> From: Karl Taylor
> To: "Nowicki, Sophie (GSFC-6150)" ,
> "cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu"
> CC: Jonathan Gregory
> Subject: Re: ice_sheet/land_ice confusion
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Ma
e roughness. Mean square slope describes a derivation over multiple
> waves within a sea-state, for example calculated from moments of the wave
> directional spectrum. "crosswave" indicates that slope values are derived
> from vector components across (normal to) the axis from whi
describes an aspect of sea surface wave geometry related to sea
> surface roughness. Mean square slope describes a derivation over multiple
> waves within a sea-state, for example calculated from moments of the wave
> directional spectrum. "crosswave" indicates that slope val
travelling.
>
> sea_surface_crosswave_mean_square_slope
> Units: 1
> Wave slope describes an aspect of sea surface wave geometry related to sea
> surface roughness. Mean square slope describes a derivation over multiple
> waves within a sea-state, for example calculated from mome
oss_from_direction
>
> * if we use _from_direction in conjunction with _upwave, then we need to add
> some text to link the two terms in the standard name definition.
>
> Any of these make sense?
> Cheers
> Andy
>
> PS. Devon is geographically 'up' from Cornwall - but
Dear Roy
That's fine - thanks. I had overlooked that it was already defined.
Best wishes
Jonathan
- Forwarded message from "Lowry, Roy K." -
> Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2018 14:05:06 +
> From: "Lowry, Roy K."
> To: Jonathan Gregory , Rob Thomas
>
Dear Andy
> Re the direction of the _mean_square_slope, the parameter and calculation
> method from the wave spectrum is sufficiently different from that for
> _wave_[to/from]_direction that it should stand alone. There has already been
> a precedent set for this with waves, where different
Dear Rob
>From the responses it's clear we need a name for this. I'm a bit nervous about
"spread", which sounds vague to me. Can you clarify it?
Best wishes and thanks
Jonathan
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 07:47:51AM +, Rob Thomas wrote:
> Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2018 07:47:51 +
> From: Rob
Dear Andy
> In this case "dominant" (which infers a method of calculation) is not the
> same as "primary" (which is used in the existing wave standard names to
> denote ranking of swell components). However, I agree we could omit the
> "dominant" to bring this more in line with other wave
Dear Paul, Jim, Roy
Thanks for the clarifications. Now I understand that fugacity is different from
partial pressure, so I agree it needs its own names.
Best wishes
Jonathan
- Forwarded message from "Halloran, Paul" -
> Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 11:59:05 +
> From: "Halloran, Paul"
Dear Andy
> Re the _mean_square_slope, I was probably over-thinking it. I'd also be happy
> to lose the magnitude part; i.e. sea_surface_wave_[xy]_mean_square_slope
OK - fine!
> Fabrice highlighted that in addition to the grid x-y reference frame, it a
> number of users would wish to consider
Dear Paul
We already have a standard name of
partial_pressure_of_carbon_dioxide_in_sea_water
Is that the same thing?
Best wishes
Jonathan
- Forwarded message from "Halloran, Paul" -
> Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 15:40:31 +
> From: "Halloran, Paul"
> To: "cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu"
>
Dear Alison
If it's necessary to have names for unsigned quantities because it's really
not known, then I agree we should, but I think we ought strongly to discourage
recording of data without a sign convention. Maybe we could introduce new
names (with the existing ones as aliases) that
Dear all
I agree in applauding the hard work and excellent results of Jim and others.
Thanks! I also agree with Alison's proposal to change the convention to allow
an alias to apply to more than one existing standard name.
Best wishes
Jonathan
___
Dear Andy
Thanks for these proposals.
> charnock_coefficient_for_surface_roughness_length_for_momentum_in_air
> sea_surface_wave_mean_square_slope
are consistent with existing names and look fine to me.
I don't quite understand these ones.
> magnitude_of_sea_surface_wave_[xy]_mean_square_slope
:26PM +, Lowry, Roy K. wrote:
> Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 16:07:26 +
> From: "Lowry, Roy K."
> To: Jonathan Gregory ,
> "cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu"
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Platform Heave
>
> Dear Jonathan,
>
>
> This isn't a
oard, pitch up,
> >and roll starboard down all anticlockwise rotations, but it points
> >the Z unit vector down, which is, for most people, rather
> >counter-intuitive. And this is why we are trying to define things
> >in terms that don't require specification of unit vec
Dear Martin
Thanks for spotting this. I agree with your solution.
Best wishes
Jonathan
- Forwarded message from Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC
-
> Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 09:05:33 +
> From: Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC
> To: "CF-metadata (cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu)"
> Subject:
is is the
yaw rotation - but is that the opposite sign from yours?
Best wishes
Jonathan
>
> On 9/3/18 12:51 PM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> >Dear Roy and Nan
> >
> >I agree that if there are existing names whose sign convention is undefined
> >we can't retrospecti
ng by picking the
> >wrong version.
> > * Semantically, there is only one concept in each case. If I
> >am searching for roll variables and I have multiple names that
> >mean roll, I must expand my search to include all variants. This
> >is a small example, but there are
Dear Jim
Thanks for your email.
> * There is no single sign convention being followed in existing
>datasets "in the wild".
I am not surprised. That's similar with other quantities. I agree that we have
to be able to describe the quantities people wish to use. CF doesn't try to
dictate what
Dear all
I haven't been following this discussion, so please excuse me if I've missed
the point. I think you are suggesting introducing a new attribute to indicate
the positive sense of various new quantities for platform orientation - is
that right? To do that would not be consistent with other
Dear David
I agree with your proposals to stop new trac tickets quite soon and to put the
conformance doc in the same git repository as the conventions doc.
Earlier and at the CF meeting last month I argued in favour of continuing with
trac for the moment, because I think it's important that
ddition to the CF
> Conventions. I was hoping your familiarity with these could recommend a
> suitable section for amendment.
>
>
> Cheers, Roy.
>
>
> I have now retired but will continue to be active through an Emeritus
> Fellowship using this e-mail address.
>
>
indicated by the standard name is calculated solely
> with respect to the B contained in A, neglecting all other chemical
> constituents of A. Biological taxon is a name or other label identifying an
> organism or a group of organisms as belonging to a unit of classification in
> a hierarchica
any heat flux conveyed by
> precipitation. It looks to me as though the wording is a reflection of the
> state of models at the time the standard names were defined, when it may have
> been reasonable to omit mention of transport of heat by precipitation and
> equate sensible heat flux at th
Dear Alison
These all look fine to me. Thanks very much
Jonathan
- Forwarded message from Alison Pamment - UKRI STFC
-
> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 09:16:51 +
> From: Alison Pamment - UKRI STFC
> To: "cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu"
> Cc: Hyungjun Kim
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata]
Dear Alison and Martin
> tendency_of_thermal_energy_content_of_surface_snow_due_to_rainfall_temperature_excess_above_freezing
I think this suggestion of Alison's is very good, to describe the rainfall
temperature flux as a change in heat content due to X rather than as the
problematic X heat
t; Alison Pamment Tel: +44 1235 778065
> NCAS/Centre for Environmental Data ArchivalEmail:
> alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk
> STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> R25, 2.22
> Harwell Oxford, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
>
> -Original Mes
e layers'.
>
> With these modifications, I think we could justify staying with
>
> tendency_of_sea_water_potential/conservative_temperature_expressed_as_heat_content
> and dropping the "integral _wrt_depth_" from
>
> integral_wrt_depth_of_sea_water_potential_temperature_expressed_as_heat_conten
Dear Alison et al.
I still find myself tripping over rainfall_mass. Why not rainfall_amount,
rainfall_flux or rainfall_rate? They would all be the same number, since it's
a *fraction*. Another possibility would be a reordering to
mass_fraction_of_rainfall_falling_onto_surface_snow (1)
Dear Alison and Martin
> 3.1 hfrs Heat transferred to snowpack by rainfall [W m-2]
>
> Martin has suggested the following:
> surface_downward_sensible_heat_flux_due_to_rainfall_temperature_anomaly
> The rainfall temperature anomaly is the temperature of the snow relative to
> the zero Celsius.
Dear Alison and Dirk
> It has taken me a little while to understand this name, but I am beginning to
> grasp it!
> sea_ice_horizontal_shear_strain_rate_maximum_over_coordinate_rotation (s-1)
I think the concept and definition are fine, but the name could maybe be made
a bit clearer. The last
,
> "cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu" , Jonathan
> Gregory , Karl Taylor ,
> "Durack, Paul J."
> Subject: Re:
> tendency_of_sea_water_conservative_temperature_expressed_as_heat_content
> units
>
> Dear Stephen,
>
> Thank yo
Dear Sophie, Alison and all
A comment on just one of these.
> > 2. land_ice_basal_temperature (K)
> Answer from Sophie:
...
> Yes, Alison’s revised definition is great. I am wondering if to be more
> consistent with “temperature_at_top_of_ice_sheet_model”, whether the long
> name should become
1 - 100 of 1071 matches
Mail list logo
