A couple of quick comments following on from Jonathan's post. (1) I know of at least 6 pre-TEOS-10 expressions for density used in models, with authors like Fofonoff & Millard, Cox, Wright, Jackett & McDougall, McDougall et al. Jackett et al. and they are all written in terms of Practical Salinity. I know of none used in ocean models that use any other type of salinity (until TEOS-10 has come along). So we can safely say that ocean and climate models have had their sea water equations of state written in terms of Practical Salinity.
(2) The fact that a model variable drifts should not be a reason to use a different name for that variable. For example, we do not change the name "potential temperature" to something else just because model temperatures are not perfect and they drift. Trevor -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Gregory [mailto:j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, 27 July 2011 1:45 AM To: McDougall, Trevor (CMAR, Hobart) Cc: ngalbra...@whoi.edu; CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu; Durack, Paul (CMAR, Hobart); Barker, Paul (CMAR, Hobart); rainer.feis...@io-warnemuende.de; r...@eos.ubc.ca; b...@noc.soton.ac.uk; stephen.griff...@noaa.gov Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] new TEOS-10 standard names Dear all I understand the need to be clear, with new standard names, which observational quantity is being collected in future. I do not agree, however, that we should make the plain "salinity" name an alias for something more precise. This is partly because that might change the meaning of existing data, possibly incorrectly as Trevor points out. Partly it is also because I think it is quite possible that models, perhaps idealised, may be used in which it would not be meaningful to be more precise than just "salinity". Trevor argues that existing ocean models use practical salinity because (a) they are initialised with observations of that and (b) they assume so in their equation of state. I don't think (a) is necessarily so. In some cases, they might not be initialised with observations, for instance in idealised investigations of spin-up. Even when initialised from obs, they will almost certainly drift to a less realistic state. I don't know enough about it to be sure about (b). Unless we could be certain this is always the case, I think plain "salinity" should be retained for possible use in models. However, we could certainly recommend that models should use one of the new more precise terms if definitely appropriate. This recommendation could be included in the standard_name definition of plain "salinity". I understand the existing standard name sea_water_temperature to mean in-situ temperature, as it does for air temperature. This could be stated in the definition. The purpose of standard names themselves is not to prescribe or recommend what quantities people should store in netCDF files. It is to allow them to describe with sufficient precision the quantities they have chosen to store, in order to make it possible to decide which quantities from different datasets should be regarded as comparable. Standard names are all in lower case, regardless of what case is used in ordinary writing. This is for simplicity in matching strings. Case-sensitive matching would inevitably trip people up and cause a nuisance when they got it wrong. Best wishes Jonathan _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata