Dear Alison and Karl: Thanks for the discussion here. The key issue is that model teams need to be more precise as to which SST variable is being used. As more advanced systems begin to fully couple ocean and atmosphere, begin to perform radiance assimilation etc the need for each of the different SST variables becomes readily apparent.
I would not like to see any of the current CF SST definitions watered down in the manner proposed. But rather to ask Karl to define what he means by SST in the modelling context that he is working? Then we may hope to resolve the issue efficiently. Regards Craig -- *** Sent from my iPhone *** -- Dr Craig Donlon Sentinel-3 Mission Scientist, Principal Scientist for Oceans and Ice European Space Agency/ESTEC Keplerlaan 1, 2201 AZ Noordwijk The Netherlands e: craig.don...@esa.int t: +31 (0)715 653687 f: +31 (0)715 655675 m: +31 (0)627 013244 Skype: crazit > On 3 Mar 2016, at 19:53, <alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk> > <alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk> wrote: > > Dear Karl, > > Thanks for your comments on this. Clearly we need to get this right before I > make any changes in the standard name table. > > I recall that the sea surface skin, subskin and foundation temperatures were > introduced primarily to describe satellite radiometer data because the > existing sea_surface_temperature name was too vague. I have the impression > that modellers sometimes use the word “skin” as being synonymous with the > interface at the bottom of the atmosphere and I think that was probably the > intention behind its use in the current definition. By contrast, the > observational community have a very specific definition for the sea skin: > “the conductive diffusion-dominated sub-layer at a depth of approximately 10 > - 20 micrometers below the air-sea interface”. So I think there is scope for > some confusion here since the more specific sea surface temperature names > were introduced. > > As far as standard name definitions are concerned, the main thing is to > ensure we provide clear guidance as to when a particular name should be used > and to explain the relationships between similar names. I take your point > that some models may be deliberately formulated to have > sea_surface_temperature (by which I assume you mean the top layer of the > model) the same as the interface temperature. I assume you would still label > it with a standard name of sea_surface_temperature, even though in this case > it would be directly comparable with a variable with standard name > surface_temperature and we should probably explain that in the definition. > > Do models ever output variables that you would actually want label as > “skin”, “subskin” or “foundation” temperatures (as defined in the existing > standard names)? If not, then perhaps it is best to simply note in the > definition that the other names exist and that they have very specific > definitions. This avoids the issue around the word “skin”. > > These points would then lead to a definition something like the following: > ‘Sea surface temperature is usually abbreviated as "SST". It is the > temperature of sea water near the surface (including the part under sea-ice, > if any), and is not necessarily the same as the interface temperature at the > bottom of the atmosphere, whose standard name is surface_temperature. Some > models are formulated such that sea_surface_temperature and > surface_temperature are the same in ice free sea areas. The standard names > sea_surface_skin_temperature, sea_surface_subskin_temperature and > sea_surface_foundation_temperature can be used to describe the temperature in > specific layers close to the sea surface and are often used to describe > satellite observations. For the temperature of sea water at a particular > depth or layer, a standard name of sea_water_temperature with a vertical > coordinate axis should be used.’ > > Does that sound OK? Does it include all the necessary information? > > Best wishes, > Alison > > ------ > Alison Pamment Tel: +44 > 1235 778065 > Centre for Environmental Data Analysis Email: > alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk > STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory > R25, 2.22 > Harwell Campus, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K. > > > From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Karl > Taylor > Sent: 02 March 2016 20:26 > To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Confusing skin temperature and interface > temperature > > Dear Alison and all, > > For "sea_surface_temperature", there is a problem stating definitively that > it is "not the skin or interface temperature". In most models the skin and > interface temperatures over ice-free (i.e., open) ocean are indeed the same > as sea_surface_temperature (by construction). I think it would be more > accurate (and less misleading) to say it is "not *necessarily* the skin or > interface temperature". You could also add to the list > "sea_surface_foundation_temperature" here because in models it too is often > the same as sea_surface_temperature". Models are evolving, so this might > not indefinitely be the case. > > thanks, > Karl > > > On 3/2/16 9:40 AM, alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk wrote: > Dear Martin, All, > > No objections have been received to the proposed definition change and it is > now accepted for publication in the standard name table. > > The name will in future appear as: > sea_surface_temperature (canonical units: K) > ‘Sea surface temperature is usually abbreviated as "SST". It is the > temperature of sea water near the surface (including the part under sea-ice, > if any), not the skin or interface temperature, whose standard names are > sea_surface_skin_temperature and surface_temperature, respectively. For the > temperature of sea water at a particular depth or layer, a data variable of > sea_water_temperature with a vertical coordinate axis should be used.’ > > In response to Martin’s proposal I received an email from Craig Donlon > (original proposer of many of the current sea_surface_X_temperature names). > Craig and his team support the Martin’s proposal and additionally point out > an error that occurs in the definition of the following names: > sea_surface_skin_temperature > sea_surface_subskin_temperature > in which the first sentence reads “The surface called "surface" means the > lower boundary of the atmosphere” even though the temperatures are not in > fact measured at the sea-air boundary. The suggestion is to delete the > initial sentence from the definitions. I note also that a similar situation > currently exists with the standard name sea_surface_foundation_temperature > even though that temperature generally refers to a depth of 1 – 5 m below the > sea surface. > > I agree with Craig that the sentence should be deleted. I think it was > probably included by accident because most “surface” standard names do indeed > refer to the interface between the bottom of the atmosphere and whatever lies > beneath. I plan to remove the sentence from the definitions of these three > names at the next standard name table update unless any objections are > received in the meantime. > > Best wishes, > Alison > > ------ > Alison Pamment Tel: +44 > 1235 778065 > Centre for Environmental Data Analysis Email: > alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk > STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory > R25, 2.22 > Harwell Campus, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K. > > > From: Pamment, Alison (STFC,RAL,RALSP) > Sent: 03 February 2016 15:32 > To: Juckes, Martin (STFC,RAL,RALSP); cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu > Subject: RE: Confusing skin temperature and interface temperature > > Dear Martin, > > Thank you for pointing this out. I agree that since the introduction of the > very precisely defined sea_surface_skin_temperature name, the definition of > the more generic name is confusing. I agree with your suggested amendment and > unless anyone objects within the next seven days the change will be accepted > and added at the next update of the standard name table. > > Best wishes, > Alison > > From: Juckes, Martin (STFC,RAL,RALSP) > Sent: 02 February 2016 16:07 > To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu; Pamment, Alison (STFC,RAL,RALSP) > Subject: Confusing skin temperature and interface temperature > > Hello All, > > The CF Standard Name sea_surface_temperature includes the statement that it > is ".... not the skin temperature, whose standard name is > surface_temperature". The last phrase here is incorrect: the standard name of > the skin temperature is sea_surface_skin_temperature, not > surface_temperature. Can the definition be modified to read ".. not the skin > or interface temperature, whose standard names are > sea_surface_skin_temperature and surface_temperature respectively"? > > regards, > Martin > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only. The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its content is not permitted. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender. Please consider the environment before printing this email.
_______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
