Great - thanks both,
Looks like we can tick off 15, 16, 24.
For 28 - yes, I agree this is OK, so that's done too.
For 27 - thanks for the info Martin - I agree this makes sense as a way to go
(having a string valued coordinate, not standardised). The name itself looks OK
to me too.
Chris
--
Hello Chris,
thanks. The proposed standard name for raRoot (with the modification suggested
in my Q1) is consistent with your answer to Q2, so I support going forward with
that:
surface_upward_mass_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon_due_to_plant_respiration_in_roots
Your answers
Dear Burkhardt,
the names look good to me, but I have a question about the precise definition
of "hail", which has not previously been used in CF standard names. The
existing name "graupel_fall_amount" cites the AMS definition for graupel :
"Heavily rimed snow particles, often called snow
Sounds good on all fronts! Thanks
Chris
--
Dr Chris Jones
Head, Earth System and Mitigation Science Team
Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB, U.K.
Tel: +44 (0)1392 884514 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681
E-mail: chris.d.jo...@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk
Dear Sophie,
Thanks for contacting me about the remaining ISMIP6 names. I recall that much
of the discussion of these names had centred around the definitions, rather
than the names themselves. I've now looked back through our various
conversations from 2016 and 2017 and I think that most of
Thanks Martin - good questions!
Q1 - that's a good point. Yes I think these should take that form too unless
there's a reason not too - but yes, this is a CO2 flux into the atmosphere and
we want it in terms of mass of carbon lost.
Q3 - I'll answer this first - yes, rOther is also required in
Dear Alison, Chris,
I have a few questions about items 21, 22, 23:
21: raStem surface_upward_mass_flux_of_carbon_due_to_plant_respiration_in_stems:
22: raLeaf surface_upward_mass_flux_of_carbon_due_to_plant_respiration_in_leaves
23: raRoot
Hi all,
It seems that my question did not attract much response. :(
Is it because no one knows how to use these standard names and properly encode
the "quantity that differs from its surface value by a certain amount"?
Giving it more thoughts I feel that I need new standard names to describe
Dear Alison,
Thank you so much for your digging through the remaining ISMIP6 standard names!
I am OK with everything below, including using land_ice_basal_drag
With kind regards
Sophie
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 5 Apr
Dear Burkhardt,
We could have an additional set of standard names:
atmospheric_mass_content_of_graupel_and_hail, and instruct modeling centres to
use the one which fits their modeling approach.
But the UM presentation implies that they have a partition of the solid phase
between ice, snow
Dear Martin,
thank you for your comments!
The difference of graupel and hail is mainly by the definition of the size as
far as I know. Graupel: diameter sizes <5mm ; hail >= 5mm. I guess models need
to have a two-moment cloud scheme implemented to distinguish between graupel
and hail.
In
Dear Martin,
here comes the next iteration. For completeness I added also the X_fall_amount
and X_fall_fluxes by using rainfall and snowfall as templates.
Regards
Burkhardt
atmosphere_mass_content_of_graupel
units: kg m-2
"Content" indicates a quantity per unit area. The "atmosphere content"
Dear Sebastien
It's interesting that this question hasn't been raised before. Thanks for doing
so now. I agree that new standard names would be appropriate. There are already
some standard names containing "difference" in various ways. I would suggest
that for your purpose the names don't have to
Hello Sebastien,
I have to admit that coming from an observational background I do not fully
understand the raft of mixed layer thickness Standard Names that I presume have
their origins in model data. They've been around for a long while (dated 2006,
but could predate that by a couple of
Dear Martin
Thanks for these proposals. I think your new constructions A_containing_B and
isotope_ratio_of_A_to_B are good ideas, which you need for these quantities.
My previous posting about "frozen" and precipitation always being water apply
to some of these as well.
Best wishes
Jonathan
Dear Martin
I agree with the need, but I note that the guidelines propose the phrase
frozen_water for solid water, and this is already used in several standard
names.
Although "precipitation" is used in the world at large for species other than
water, so far in CF standard names it's used only
Dear Jonathan,
I hadn't spotted the existing usage of frozen_water. My only reservation is
that for such names the help text says '"frozen_water" means ice', which would
exclude snow. The existing usages of "frozen_water" are all soil quantities for
which the subtlety of the distinction
Dear Jonathan and Sebastien,
I was initially thinking of not including '_defining_mixed_layer' in my
suggestion and am certainly happy with leaving it out. However, I still think
sigma_t and sigma_theta should be prefixed with 'sea_water'. This would give:
sea_water_temperature_difference
Dear Alison and Elisa
These names generally look fine to me. Thanks. I have a couple of comments.
> surface_downward_eastward_stress_due_to_boundary_layer_mixing (canonical
> units: Pa)
> surface_downward_northward_stress_due_to_boundary_layer_mixing (canonical
> units: Pa)
Could the
Dear Jonathan and Roy,
thank you for your suggestions.
I am happy to go with a set of general standard names if it is fine with
everyone. I find it actually useful to make the standard names reusable by not
hard-coding one of the reference. It is pretty clear from the mixed layer
definition
20 matches
Mail list logo
