Dear Martin,

Okay, thank you. The vote is carried! The following aliases will be created in 
the next standard name table update:
river_water_volume_transport_into_cell -> 
incoming_water_volume_transport_along_river_channel
river_water_volume_transport_out_of_cell 
->outgoing_water_volume_transport_along_river_channel.

I think this concludes discussion of all the LS3MIP names. Thank you to all who 
have contributed to the many discussions.

Best wishes,
Alison

------
Alison Pamment                                 Tel: +44 1235 778065
NCAS/Centre for Environmental Data Archival    Email: alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk
STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory     
R25, 2.22
Harwell Oxford, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.

From: Juckes, Martin (STFC,RAL,RALSP) 
Sent: 04 July 2018 14:13
To: Pamment, Alison (STFC,RAL,RALSP) <alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk>; 
cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu; j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Final 17 terms for CMIP6 LS3MIP: Heat flux into 
snowpack

For the river water names we have one vote for
> inward_water_volume_transport_along_river_channel
> outward_water_volume_transport_along_river_channel
and one for
> incoming_water_volume_transport_along_river_channel
> outgoing_water_volume_transport_along_river_channel.

I will vote for incoming/outgoing. The qualifiers upward/downward are used to 
express a sign convention, so that upward_flux_of_X is minus the downward flux, 
and we use upwelling/downwelling to express fluxes associated with photons 
moving in different directions. By association, I think it will be clearer if 
we avoid the "inward" and "outward" here,

regards,
Martin


________________________________________
From: Pamment, Alison (STFC,RAL,RALSP)
Sent: 04 July 2018 11:48:39
To: Juckes, Martin (STFC,RAL,RALSP); mailto:cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu; 
mailto:j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Final 17 terms for CMIP6 LS3MIP: Heat flux into 
snowpack 
 
Dear Martin and Jonathan,

Thank you both for the very useful discussion of these names. I agree with 
Martin that the existing sensible_heat_flux names probably should become 
turbulent_heat_flux names. There are only four of them, but I will address 
those in a separate thread.

For the LS3MIP heat flux name we now have:
tendency_of_thermal_energy_content_of_surface_snow_due_to_rainfall_temperature_excess_above_freezing
'The phrase "tendency_of_X" means derivative of X with respect to time. 
"Content" indicates a quantity per unit area.Thermal energy is the total 
vibrational energy, kinetic and potential, of all the molecules and atoms in a 
substance. The phrase "surface_snow" means snow lying on the surface. The 
quantity with standard name 
tendency_of_thermal_energy_content_of_surface_snow_due_to_rainfall_temperature_excess_above_freezing
 is the heat energy carried by rainfall reaching the surface. It is calculated 
relative to the heat that would be carried by rainfall reaching the surface at 
zero degrees Celsius. It is calculated as the product QrainCpTrain, where Qrain 
is the mass flux of rainfall reaching the surface (kg m-2 s-1), Cp is the 
specific heat capacity of water and Train is the temperature in degrees Celsius 
of the rain water reaching the surface. The specification of a physical process 
by the phrase due_to_process means that the quantity named is a single term in 
a sum of terms which together compose the general quantity named by omitting 
the phrase.'

This name is accepted for publication in the standard name table and will be 
added in the next update.

For the river water names we have one vote for
> inward_water_volume_transport_along_river_channel
> outward_water_volume_transport_along_river_channel
and one for
> incoming_water_volume_transport_along_river_channel
> outgoing_water_volume_transport_along_river_channel.

Martin, it looks as though you will have the casting vote! Which do you prefer?

Best wishes,
Alison

________________________________________
From: CF-metadata <mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu> on behalf of Martin 
Juckes - UKRI STFC <mailto:martin.juc...@stfc.ac.uk>
Sent: 03 July 2018 12:02
To: mailto:cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu; mailto:j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Final 17 terms for CMIP6 LS3MIP: Heat flux into 
snowpack 
 

Dear Alison, Jonathan,


Thanks for these final suggestions. I agree with these proposals. I have a 
reservation about the interpretation of "sensible heat flux" which was 
mentioned in the discussion, but that does not need to delay approval of these 
proposed terms which neatly avoid the problem.


The usage of "sensible heat flux" outside the standard name list consistently 
refer to it as a thermodynamic property, not something which is specific to a 
particular medium. In the existing standard names which include the phrase 
"sensible_heat_flux" the descriptive text suggests that it applies to heat flux 
through air alone, implicitly excluding 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 the surface to turbulent heat flux at the surface. 
As models can now, apparently, resolve the sensible heat flux associated with 
falling rain, I can't see any reason for maintaining an interpretation of 
"sensible_heat_flux" in standard names which conflicts with the normal usage.


regards,

Martin

________________________________
From: CF-metadata <mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu> on behalf of 
Jonathan Gregory <mailto:jonathan.greg...@ncas.ac.uk>
Sent: 01 July 2018 18:27
To: mailto:cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: [CF-metadata] Final 17 terms for CMIP6 LS3MIP: Heat flux into snowpack

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 flux. Thanks.

> inward_water_volume_transport_along_river_channel
> outward_water_volume_transport_along_river_channel
> OR
> incoming_water_volume_transport_along_river_channel
> outgoing_water_volume_transport_along_river_channel.

I prefer the latter pair still, but I don't mind.

Best wishes

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

Reply via email to