[CF-metadata] [CF Metadata] CF trac ticket summary update

[David Hassell]

​Hello,

The summary of CF Metadata Trac tickets has been updated for the ​
​21st May
 2018 (http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~david/cf_trac_summary.html). This page
is also linked from the​ CF home page (http://cfconventions.org/).


Currently:

​ ​
5 tickets have ​
been accepted
for CF-1.8 ​
[green]
​ ​2​
 ticke​ts are in active discussion [yellow]
3
​8
tickets are dormant [red]

​
Since
26th February 2018
one ticket has been accepted (#170
), two tickets are in active
discussion (#99  and #160
) and
two tickets have become dormant (
#161  and #171
).

​All the best,

​

​David
​

-- 
David Hassell
National Centre for Atmospheric Science
Department of Meteorology, University of Reading,
Earley Gate, PO Box 243, Reading RG6 6BB
Tel: +44 118 378 5613
http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/
___
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata

Re: [CF-metadata] Platform Heave

[Steven Emmerson]

Whatever name you come up with, the canonical unit of the heave rate
shouldn't be "ms-1", but rather one of the following:

m s-1

m/s

m.s-1

I favor "m/s".

Regards,
Steve Emmerson

On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 6:32 AM, Hamilton, Steve 
wrote:

> Hi
>
>
>
> I am trying to find the CF name for heave of a vessel or platform.
> platform_roll_angle and platform_pitch_angle already exist but nothing on
> heave
>
>
>
> Would be the following be acceptable
>
>
>
> Platform_heave (m)
>
> Platform_heave_rate (ms-1)
>
>
>
> Standard names for platform describe the motion and orientation of the
> vehicle from which observations are made e.g. aeroplane, ship or satellite.
>
>
>
> Kind Regards,
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> ___
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
>
___
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata

Re: [CF-metadata] Platform Heave

[Lowry, Roy K.]

DearSteve,


Would you care to provide definitions?


Cheers, Roy.


I am retiring on 31/05/2018 but will continue to be active through an Emeritus 
Fellowship using this e-mail address.



From: CF-metadata  on behalf of Hamilton, 
Steve 
Sent: 21 May 2018 13:32
To: 'cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu'
Subject: [CF-metadata] Platform Heave


Hi



I am trying to find the CF name for heave of a vessel or platform.  
platform_roll_angle and platform_pitch_angle already exist but nothing on heave



Would be the following be acceptable



Platform_heave (m)

Platform_heave_rate (ms-1)



Standard names for platform describe the motion and orientation of the vehicle 
from which observations are made e.g. aeroplane, ship or satellite.



Kind Regards,



Steve




This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject 
to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any 
reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under 
the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic records 
management system.

___
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata

Re: [CF-metadata] Standard Names to support Trac ticket 99

[Lowry, Roy K.]

Dear Jonathan,


I'll go back to the biological experts and see what they think. They were 
recommending 'biological entity', but I thought that might cause issues because 
it would bring into scope morphological classifications and bits of organisms 
such as 'cod liver' for which there is no (to my knowledge) governance in place 
like there is with taxon.


Cheers, Roy.


I am retiring on 31/05/2018 but will continue to be active through an Emeritus 
Fellowship using this e-mail address.



From: CF-metadata  on behalf of Jonathan 
Gregory 
Sent: 21 May 2018 16:37
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard Names to support Trac ticket 99

Dear Roy and Martin

I think taxonomic_category might be a little better than taxon, but it still
seems obscure to me. Can you see something wrong with organisms_in_taxon (or
_from_ or _belonging_to_) for instance? It is the organisms we mean.

Best wishes

Jonathan

- Forwarded message from "Lowry, Roy K."  -

> Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 08:02:05 +
> From: "Lowry, Roy K." 
> To: Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC ,
>"cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu" ,
>"j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk" 
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard Names to support Trac ticket 99
>
> Dear Jonathan,
>
>
> Getting back to Trac 99. I prefer Martin's suggestion here. Are you happy 
> with that?
>
>
> Cheers, Roy.
>
>
> I am retiring on 31/05/2018 but will continue to be active through an 
> Emeritus Fellowship using this e-mail address.
>
>
> 
> From: Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC 
> Sent: 02 May 2018 08:47
> To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu; j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk; Lowry, Roy K.
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard Names to support Trac ticket 99
>
> Dear Roy, Jonathan,
>
>
> I understand the cause of Jonathan's concern: wikipedia suggests a broader 
> interpretation of "taxon" which would be consistent with using the word to 
> refer to the organisms from a biological taxon, but the Encyclopedia 
> Britannica has a narrower and perhaps more scientifically precise definition 
> in which "taxon" refers to the name, not the organisms matching the name 
> (https://www.britannica.com/science/taxon ). The article uses the phrase 
> "taxonomic category" which could be used as an alternative to Jonathan's 
> suggestion:
>
> mass_concentration_of_taxonomic_category_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water
>
>
> regards,
>
> Martin
>
>
> 
> From: CF-metadata  on behalf of Jonathan 
> Gregory 
> Sent: 01 May 2018 17:08
> To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard Names to support Trac ticket 99
>
> Dear Roy
>
> I agree that the confusion is unlikely. Maybe I shouldn't have given that
> example, because it's distracting. My discomfort is just that "taxon" doesn't
> mean "organisms" but "name of type of organisms" e.g. in
>   mass_concentration_of_biological_taxon_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water
> you can substitute your proposed definition of taxon, to get
>   
> mass_concentration_of_name_identifying_an_organism_as_belonging_to_a_unit_of_classification_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water
> I think you mean
>   
> mass_concentration_of_organisms_from_biological_taxon_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water
> That's a bit longer, but feels more comfortable to me.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> - Forwarded message from "Lowry, Roy K."  -
>
> > Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 11:55:26 +
> > From: "Lowry, Roy K." 
> > To: "cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu" ,
> >"j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk" 
> > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata]  Standard Names to support Trac ticket 99
> >
> > Dear Jonathon,
> >
> >
> > I realised that I hadn't replied to this. Think we're all agreed on 
> > biological_taxon_lsid.
> >
> >
> > I can't think of an alternative to cover your second comment, but feel that 
> > 'number_concentration_of_biological_taxon' with 'concentration' and taxon 
> > in the singular is clearly different from 'number_of_biological_taxa', or 
> > more likely 'count_of_biological_taxa' and so feel that there is not a 
> > significant risk of confusion.
> >
> >
> > Cheers, Roy.
> >
> >
> > Please note that I partially retired on 01/11/2015. I am now only working 
> > 7.5 hours a week and can only guarantee e-mail response on Wednesdays, my 
> > day in the office. All vocabulary queries should be sent to 
> > enquir...@bodc.ac.uk. Please also use this e-mail if your requirement is 
> > urgent.
> >
> >
> > 
> > From: CF-metadata  on behalf of Jonathan 
> > Gregory 

Re: [CF-metadata] Request for Comments on CF Swath and CF2-Group Proposals

[Randy Horne]

Folks:

I have a very general comment on CF Swath related to geolocating pixels in a 
swath.

Level 1/2 product generation systems that output remotely sensed swath data 
from polar orbiting systems often have a concern/requirements related to 
keeping the volume of data to a minimum.

If I am reading the CF swath proposal correctly, it would seem there is an 
assumption that lat/lon coordinates for each pixel is required to be CF 
compliant.  This adds significantly to the size of a NetCDF-CF product file 
containing swath data.

Has there been any thought to define some type of a polar orbiting satellite 
projection that includes requisite time, orbital, and sensing map parameters in 
addition to explicit lat/lon values in the product file ?

Note that this question is not just limited to swath data coming from polar 
orbiting satellites.


v/r

randy


> On Apr 30, 2018, at 1:56 PM, Charlie Zender  wrote:
> 
> Dear CFers,
> 
> We wish to draw your attention to and invite feedback on two proposals
> to extend CF:
> 
>  CF Swath, for encoding remotely-sensed (a.k.a. swath) data
>  https://github.com/Unidata/EC-netCDF-CF/blob/master/swath/swath.adoc
> 
>  CF2-Group, for files with netCDF4 Groups
>  https://github.com/diwg/cf2
> 
> Questions/comments may be made as GitHub issues at their respective
> repositories. Suggested changes may be made as GitHub Pull-Requests
> (PRs).
> 
> Sincerely,
> Charlie, Daniel, and Aleksandar
> -- 
> Charlie Zender, Earth System Sci. & Computer Sci.
> University of California, Irvine 949-891-2429 )'(
> ___
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata

_

Randy C Horne (rho...@excaliburlabs.com)
Principal Engineer, Excalibur Laboratories Inc.
voice & fax: (321) 952.5100
cell: (321) 693.1074
url: http://www.excaliburlabs.com




___
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata

Re: [CF-metadata] PMIP: standard names for the CMIP6 data request: tws, lighning flashes, wetland emissions, etc

[Karl Taylor]

Dear Martin,

Sorry, there is no accepted "rule" for deciding under which 
circumstances a change in experiment conditions should be described in 
the standard_name.  I listed two possible ways we could draw the line 
(which I subsequently referred to as "rules").  I would favor drawing 
the line using "rule 2".  I haven't heard anyone say we shouldn't at 
least draw the line using "rule 1".


I think we should try to define a rule we can live with, not just 
proceed on a case-by-case basis as they come up.  If we decide to 
include special names for each "perturbed radiation" calculation, we 
could potentially expand the radiation-related standard names 
substantially.   If you and Martin think that's o.k. (and we don't hear 
any strong objections from others, I don't mind.


best regards,
Karl


On 5/21/18 8:30 AM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:

Dear Martin

If the new terms are calculated by extra radiation calls, could they be
phrased with "assuming", like the clear-sky ones?

Cheers

Jonathan

- Forwarded message from Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC 
 -


Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 11:18:05 +
From: Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC 
To: Karl Taylor , Jonathan Gregory
, "cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu"

CC: "yves.balkan...@lsce.ipsl.fr" 
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] PMIP: standard names for the CMIP6 data request:
tws, lighning flashes, wetland emissions, etc

Dear Karl,


I wasn't aware of the rule (2) you refer to .. there may be a number of other 
terms that need to be reconsidered if we intend to impose this.


There is a disagreement between Jonathan and yourself about he nature of the clear sky radiative fluxes: 
Jonathan has expressed the opinion that the clear sky fluxes are, like the proposed 
"due_to_ambient_aerosol_.." terms, calculated by running the radiative transfer module in a 
diagnostic model. This view is supported by the Ghan 2013 paper 
(https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/9971/2013/acp-13-9971-2013.pdf ) which describes the relationship between 
the clear sky fluxes and a new set of "clean-clear-sky" diagnostics. New standard names for these 
"clean-clear-sky" fluxes have been in the CF Editor for some time (e.g. 
downwelling_shortwave_flux_in_air_assuming_clean_clear_sky -- http://cfeditor.ceda.ac.uk/proposal/1488 ).


If Jonathan is correct, then the proposed new terms are consistent with the 
approach used for clear sky fluxes,


regards,

Martin





From: Karl Taylor 
Sent: 18 May 2018 17:18
To: Juckes, Martin (STFC,RAL,RALSP)
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] PMIP: standard names for the CMIP6 data request: 
tws, lighning flashes, wetland emissions, etc

Hi Martin and Jonathan,

That is my understanding too, it is a extra calculation done at run time purely 
for diagnostic purposes; it  may not be required in performing a simulation.  
So this puts it in a category between:

1)  A simple change in a variable from one simulation of a coupled model to another 
(e.g., the difference in temperature between a "historical" run and a control 
run).  We generally do not assign a new standard_name for such differences.

and

2)   Prognostic and diagnostic variables calculated during run time and needed 
in order to run the model or to compare the model with observations.  We 
generally do assign specific standard_names to each of these quantities.

The proposal is to relax rule 2) to include additional diagnostic quantities.   
  If we want to consider a difference between two calculations performed by a 
model (in this case a radiation code), does it warrant a new standard_name?

In the CMIP6 archive we must surely assign it a different variable name (for uniqueness), 
and I would think we would give it a nice descriptive long name indicating the 
information about what it is (e.g., "due to"), but there is no fundamental 
reason to assign it a unique standard_name, and I wonder if we should draw the line as 
described in 2) above.

There is precedence for *not* assigning a new standard name for a diagnostic 
quantity not needed to run the model.  In the CMIP6 request, we ask for

variable namestandard_name long_name
--- -  
--
clt cloud_area_fraction   Total Cloud 
Cover Percentage
cltcalipso  cloud_area_fraction   CALIPSO Total 
Cloud Cover Percentage

best regards,
Karl


On 5/18/18 7:38 AM, Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC wrote:

Dear Jonathan,


I believe that they are repeat calculations in the model, as you suggest. They 
have been requested for PMIP by Yves Balkanski, so Yves may be able to comment 
more on this point (the question refers to swsrfasdust and related variables),

Re: [CF-metadata] Standard Names to support Trac ticket 99

[Jonathan Gregory]

Dear Roy and Martin

I think taxonomic_category might be a little better than taxon, but it still
seems obscure to me. Can you see something wrong with organisms_in_taxon (or
_from_ or _belonging_to_) for instance? It is the organisms we mean.

Best wishes

Jonathan

- Forwarded message from "Lowry, Roy K."  -

> Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 08:02:05 +
> From: "Lowry, Roy K." 
> To: Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC ,
>   "cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu" ,
>   "j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk" 
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard Names to support Trac ticket 99
> 
> Dear Jonathan,
> 
> 
> Getting back to Trac 99. I prefer Martin's suggestion here. Are you happy 
> with that?
> 
> 
> Cheers, Roy.
> 
> 
> I am retiring on 31/05/2018 but will continue to be active through an 
> Emeritus Fellowship using this e-mail address.
> 
> 
> 
> From: Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC 
> Sent: 02 May 2018 08:47
> To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu; j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk; Lowry, Roy K.
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard Names to support Trac ticket 99
> 
> Dear Roy, Jonathan,
> 
> 
> I understand the cause of Jonathan's concern: wikipedia suggests a broader 
> interpretation of "taxon" which would be consistent with using the word to 
> refer to the organisms from a biological taxon, but the Encyclopedia 
> Britannica has a narrower and perhaps more scientifically precise definition 
> in which "taxon" refers to the name, not the organisms matching the name 
> (https://www.britannica.com/science/taxon ). The article uses the phrase 
> "taxonomic category" which could be used as an alternative to Jonathan's 
> suggestion:
> 
> mass_concentration_of_taxonomic_category_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water
> 
> 
> regards,
> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> 
> From: CF-metadata  on behalf of Jonathan 
> Gregory 
> Sent: 01 May 2018 17:08
> To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard Names to support Trac ticket 99
> 
> Dear Roy
> 
> I agree that the confusion is unlikely. Maybe I shouldn't have given that
> example, because it's distracting. My discomfort is just that "taxon" doesn't
> mean "organisms" but "name of type of organisms" e.g. in
>   mass_concentration_of_biological_taxon_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water
> you can substitute your proposed definition of taxon, to get
>   
> mass_concentration_of_name_identifying_an_organism_as_belonging_to_a_unit_of_classification_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water
> I think you mean
>   
> mass_concentration_of_organisms_from_biological_taxon_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water
> That's a bit longer, but feels more comfortable to me.
> 
> Best wishes
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> 
> - Forwarded message from "Lowry, Roy K."  -
> 
> > Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 11:55:26 +
> > From: "Lowry, Roy K." 
> > To: "cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu" ,
> >"j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk" 
> > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata]  Standard Names to support Trac ticket 99
> >
> > Dear Jonathon,
> >
> >
> > I realised that I hadn't replied to this. Think we're all agreed on 
> > biological_taxon_lsid.
> >
> >
> > I can't think of an alternative to cover your second comment, but feel that 
> > 'number_concentration_of_biological_taxon' with 'concentration' and taxon 
> > in the singular is clearly different from 'number_of_biological_taxa', or 
> > more likely 'count_of_biological_taxa' and so feel that there is not a 
> > significant risk of confusion.
> >
> >
> > Cheers, Roy.
> >
> >
> > Please note that I partially retired on 01/11/2015. I am now only working 
> > 7.5 hours a week and can only guarantee e-mail response on Wednesdays, my 
> > day in the office. All vocabulary queries should be sent to 
> > enquir...@bodc.ac.uk. Please also use this e-mail if your requirement is 
> > urgent.
> >
> >
> > 
> > From: CF-metadata  on behalf of Jonathan 
> > Gregory 
> > Sent: 16 April 2018 19:19
> > To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
> > Subject: [CF-metadata] Standard Names to support Trac ticket 99
> >
> > Dear Roy
> >
> > Thanks for this. It looks sensible and well-constructed to me. I have two
> > comments.
> >
> > * In response to your question, I think biological_taxon_lsid is better, 
> > since
> > you propose that's what we use. The more generic version would be suitable 
> > if
> > we offered a choice about which sort of ID to use, but it would present a
> > difficulty if you wanted to provide more than one kind of ID; this would 
> > need
> > more than one coord var, and it would be helpful to give them different
> > standard names.
> >
> > * In the concentration names, I think 

Re: [CF-metadata] PMIP: standard names for the CMIP6 data request: tws, lighning flashes, wetland emissions, etc

[Jonathan Gregory]

Dear Martin

If the new terms are calculated by extra radiation calls, could they be
phrased with "assuming", like the clear-sky ones?

Cheers

Jonathan

- Forwarded message from Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC 
 -

> Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 11:18:05 +
> From: Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC 
> To: Karl Taylor , Jonathan Gregory
>   , "cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu"
>   
> CC: "yves.balkan...@lsce.ipsl.fr" 
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] PMIP: standard names for the CMIP6 data request:
>   tws, lighning flashes, wetland emissions, etc
> 
> Dear Karl,
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware of the rule (2) you refer to .. there may be a number of other 
> terms that need to be reconsidered if we intend to impose this.
> 
> 
> There is a disagreement between Jonathan and yourself about he nature of the 
> clear sky radiative fluxes: Jonathan has expressed the opinion that the clear 
> sky fluxes are, like the proposed "due_to_ambient_aerosol_.." terms, 
> calculated by running the radiative transfer module in a diagnostic model. 
> This view is supported by the Ghan 2013 paper 
> (https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/9971/2013/acp-13-9971-2013.pdf ) which 
> describes the relationship between the clear sky fluxes and a new set of 
> "clean-clear-sky" diagnostics. New standard names for these "clean-clear-sky" 
> fluxes have been in the CF Editor for some time (e.g. 
> downwelling_shortwave_flux_in_air_assuming_clean_clear_sky -- 
> http://cfeditor.ceda.ac.uk/proposal/1488 ).
> 
> 
> If Jonathan is correct, then the proposed new terms are consistent with the 
> approach used for clear sky fluxes,
> 
> 
> regards,
> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Karl Taylor 
> Sent: 18 May 2018 17:18
> To: Juckes, Martin (STFC,RAL,RALSP)
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] PMIP: standard names for the CMIP6 data request: 
> tws, lighning flashes, wetland emissions, etc
> 
> Hi Martin and Jonathan,
> 
> That is my understanding too, it is a extra calculation done at run time 
> purely for diagnostic purposes; it  may not be required in performing a 
> simulation.  So this puts it in a category between:
> 
> 1)  A simple change in a variable from one simulation of a coupled model to 
> another (e.g., the difference in temperature between a "historical" run and a 
> control run).  We generally do not assign a new standard_name for such 
> differences.
> 
> and
> 
> 2)   Prognostic and diagnostic variables calculated during run time and 
> needed in order to run the model or to compare the model with observations.  
> We generally do assign specific standard_names to each of these quantities.
> 
> The proposal is to relax rule 2) to include additional diagnostic quantities. 
> If we want to consider a difference between two calculations performed by 
> a model (in this case a radiation code), does it warrant a new standard_name?
> 
> In the CMIP6 archive we must surely assign it a different variable name (for 
> uniqueness), and I would think we would give it a nice descriptive long name 
> indicating the information about what it is (e.g., "due to"), but there is no 
> fundamental reason to assign it a unique standard_name, and I wonder if we 
> should draw the line as described in 2) above.
> 
> There is precedence for *not* assigning a new standard name for a diagnostic 
> quantity not needed to run the model.  In the CMIP6 request, we ask for
> 
> variable namestandard_name 
> long_name
> --- - 
>  --
> clt cloud_area_fraction   Total Cloud 
> Cover Percentage
> cltcalipso  cloud_area_fraction   CALIPSO Total 
> Cloud Cover Percentage
> 
> best regards,
> Karl
> 
> 
> On 5/18/18 7:38 AM, Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC wrote:
> 
> Dear Jonathan,
> 
> 
> I believe that they are repeat calculations in the model, as you suggest. 
> They have been requested for PMIP by Yves Balkanski, so Yves may be able to 
> comment more on this point (the question refers to swsrfasdust and related 
> variables),
> 
> 
> regards,
> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> 
> From: CF-metadata 
>  
> on behalf of Jonathan Gregory 
> 
> Sent: 18 May 2018 13:31
> To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: [CF-metadata] PMIP: standard names for the CMIP6 data request: tws, 
> lighning flashes, wetland emissions, etc
> 
> Dear Martin and Karl
> 
> 
> 
> In CMIP6, we want, for each experiment, surface net downward longwave flux 
> (rls) and the two aerosol sub-components, surface net downward 

[CF-metadata] Platform Heave

[Hamilton, Steve]

Hi

I am trying to find the CF name for heave of a vessel or platform.  
platform_roll_angle and platform_pitch_angle already exist but nothing on heave

Would be the following be acceptable

Platform_heave (m)
Platform_heave_rate (ms-1)

Standard names for platform describe the motion and orientation of the vehicle 
from which observations are made e.g. aeroplane, ship or satellite.

Kind Regards,

Steve

___
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata

Re: [CF-metadata] PMIP: standard names for the CMIP6 data request: tws, lighning flashes, wetland emissions, etc

[Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC]

Dear Karl,


I wasn't aware of the rule (2) you refer to .. there may be a number of other 
terms that need to be reconsidered if we intend to impose this.


There is a disagreement between Jonathan and yourself about he nature of the 
clear sky radiative fluxes: Jonathan has expressed the opinion that the clear 
sky fluxes are, like the proposed "due_to_ambient_aerosol_.." terms, calculated 
by running the radiative transfer module in a diagnostic model. This view is 
supported by the Ghan 2013 paper 
(https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/9971/2013/acp-13-9971-2013.pdf ) which 
describes the relationship between the clear sky fluxes and a new set of 
"clean-clear-sky" diagnostics. New standard names for these "clean-clear-sky" 
fluxes have been in the CF Editor for some time (e.g. 
downwelling_shortwave_flux_in_air_assuming_clean_clear_sky -- 
http://cfeditor.ceda.ac.uk/proposal/1488 ).


If Jonathan is correct, then the proposed new terms are consistent with the 
approach used for clear sky fluxes,


regards,

Martin





From: Karl Taylor 
Sent: 18 May 2018 17:18
To: Juckes, Martin (STFC,RAL,RALSP)
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] PMIP: standard names for the CMIP6 data request: 
tws, lighning flashes, wetland emissions, etc

Hi Martin and Jonathan,

That is my understanding too, it is a extra calculation done at run time purely 
for diagnostic purposes; it  may not be required in performing a simulation.  
So this puts it in a category between:

1)  A simple change in a variable from one simulation of a coupled model to 
another (e.g., the difference in temperature between a "historical" run and a 
control run).  We generally do not assign a new standard_name for such 
differences.

and

2)   Prognostic and diagnostic variables calculated during run time and needed 
in order to run the model or to compare the model with observations.  We 
generally do assign specific standard_names to each of these quantities.

The proposal is to relax rule 2) to include additional diagnostic quantities.   
  If we want to consider a difference between two calculations performed by a 
model (in this case a radiation code), does it warrant a new standard_name?

In the CMIP6 archive we must surely assign it a different variable name (for 
uniqueness), and I would think we would give it a nice descriptive long name 
indicating the information about what it is (e.g., "due to"), but there is no 
fundamental reason to assign it a unique standard_name, and I wonder if we 
should draw the line as described in 2) above.

There is precedence for *not* assigning a new standard name for a diagnostic 
quantity not needed to run the model.  In the CMIP6 request, we ask for

variable namestandard_name long_name
--- -  
--
clt cloud_area_fraction   Total Cloud 
Cover Percentage
cltcalipso  cloud_area_fraction   CALIPSO Total 
Cloud Cover Percentage

best regards,
Karl


On 5/18/18 7:38 AM, Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC wrote:

Dear Jonathan,


I believe that they are repeat calculations in the model, as you suggest. They 
have been requested for PMIP by Yves Balkanski, so Yves may be able to comment 
more on this point (the question refers to swsrfasdust and related variables),


regards,

Martin



From: CF-metadata 
 on 
behalf of Jonathan Gregory 

Sent: 18 May 2018 13:31
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: [CF-metadata] PMIP: standard names for the CMIP6 data request: tws, 
lighning flashes, wetland emissions, etc

Dear Martin and Karl



In CMIP6, we want, for each experiment, surface net downward longwave flux 
(rls) and the two aerosol sub-components, surface net downward longwave flux 
due to the ambient aerosol direct effect and surface net downward longwave flux 
due to dust in clear sky. I feel that this falls comfortably into the existing 
usage for the "due_to" construction.


I agree that if these fluxes mean the part of the net downward flux LW flux
that is emitted by the ambient aerosol or by the dust you could say it was
"due to". How are they calculated? Are there repeated radiation calculations
in the model, like for the clear-sky fluxes?

Best wishes

Jonathan




From: Karl Taylor 
Sent: 17 May 2018 15:58
To: Juckes, Martin (STFC,RAL,RALSP); Pamment, Alison (STFC,RAL,RALSP); 
cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu; 
yves.balkan...@lsce.ipsl.fr
Cc: Jean-Yves Peterschmitt
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] PMIP: standard names for the CMIP6 data 

Re: [CF-metadata] Standard Names to support Trac ticket 99

[Lowry, Roy K.]

Dear Jonathan,


Getting back to Trac 99. I prefer Martin's suggestion here. Are you happy with 
that?


Cheers, Roy.


I am retiring on 31/05/2018 but will continue to be active through an Emeritus 
Fellowship using this e-mail address.



From: Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC 
Sent: 02 May 2018 08:47
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu; j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk; Lowry, Roy K.
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard Names to support Trac ticket 99

Dear Roy, Jonathan,


I understand the cause of Jonathan's concern: wikipedia suggests a broader 
interpretation of "taxon" which would be consistent with using the word to 
refer to the organisms from a biological taxon, but the Encyclopedia Britannica 
has a narrower and perhaps more scientifically precise definition in which 
"taxon" refers to the name, not the organisms matching the name 
(https://www.britannica.com/science/taxon ). The article uses the phrase 
"taxonomic category" which could be used as an alternative to Jonathan's 
suggestion:

mass_concentration_of_taxonomic_category_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water


regards,

Martin



From: CF-metadata  on behalf of Jonathan 
Gregory 
Sent: 01 May 2018 17:08
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard Names to support Trac ticket 99

Dear Roy

I agree that the confusion is unlikely. Maybe I shouldn't have given that
example, because it's distracting. My discomfort is just that "taxon" doesn't
mean "organisms" but "name of type of organisms" e.g. in
  mass_concentration_of_biological_taxon_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water
you can substitute your proposed definition of taxon, to get
  
mass_concentration_of_name_identifying_an_organism_as_belonging_to_a_unit_of_classification_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water
I think you mean
  
mass_concentration_of_organisms_from_biological_taxon_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water
That's a bit longer, but feels more comfortable to me.

Best wishes

Jonathan


- Forwarded message from "Lowry, Roy K."  -

> Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 11:55:26 +
> From: "Lowry, Roy K." 
> To: "cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu" ,
>"j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk" 
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata]  Standard Names to support Trac ticket 99
>
> Dear Jonathon,
>
>
> I realised that I hadn't replied to this. Think we're all agreed on 
> biological_taxon_lsid.
>
>
> I can't think of an alternative to cover your second comment, but feel that 
> 'number_concentration_of_biological_taxon' with 'concentration' and taxon in 
> the singular is clearly different from 'number_of_biological_taxa', or more 
> likely 'count_of_biological_taxa' and so feel that there is not a significant 
> risk of confusion.
>
>
> Cheers, Roy.
>
>
> Please note that I partially retired on 01/11/2015. I am now only working 7.5 
> hours a week and can only guarantee e-mail response on Wednesdays, my day in 
> the office. All vocabulary queries should be sent to enquir...@bodc.ac.uk. 
> Please also use this e-mail if your requirement is urgent.
>
>
> 
> From: CF-metadata  on behalf of Jonathan 
> Gregory 
> Sent: 16 April 2018 19:19
> To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: [CF-metadata] Standard Names to support Trac ticket 99
>
> Dear Roy
>
> Thanks for this. It looks sensible and well-constructed to me. I have two
> comments.
>
> * In response to your question, I think biological_taxon_lsid is better, since
> you propose that's what we use. The more generic version would be suitable if
> we offered a choice about which sort of ID to use, but it would present a
> difficulty if you wanted to provide more than one kind of ID; this would need
> more than one coord var, and it would be helpful to give them different
> standard names.
>
> * In the concentration names, I think "biological taxon" means "organisms
> of biological taxon", doesn't it? I suggest it would be better to spell this
> out in some way in the standard name. For example,
>   number_concentration_of_biological_taxon_in_sea_water
> might (surprisingly) be interpreted as meaning how many species there are
> per unit volume.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> - Forwarded message from "Lowry, Roy K."  -
>
> > Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 14:02:59 +
> > From: "Lowry, Roy K." 
> > To: "cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu" 
> > Subject: [CF-metadata] Standard Names to support Trac ticket 99
> >
> > Dear All,
> >
> >
> > Here is an initial batch of 8 Standard Names to support the CF taxon 
> > dimension. Two are dimension labels whilst the other six are measurements 
> > to which the taxon is a co-ordinate. Five of these are to cover Daniel's 
> > proposal that prompted the