Re: [CF-metadata] Standard name request for ocean colour and iceberg concentration
Hi all, Thanks, that's fine. That is to say that · number_content_of_icebergs (m-2) becomes number_of_icebergs_per_unit_area Is that right? About the other suggestions, we try to make things so that each entry is a combination of existing CF concepts, except the idea of 'non algal particles' that is now introduced. · mass_concentration_of_inorganic_particles_in_sea_water (kg m-3) · volume_absorption_coefficient_of_radiative_flux_in_sea_water_due_to_dissolved_organic_matter_and_non_algal_particles (m-1) · volume_absorption_coefficient_of_radiative_flux_in_sea_water_due_to_phytoplankton (m-1) · volume_backwards_scattering_coefficient_of_radiative_flux_in_sea_water_due_to_particles (m-1) Comments are welcome, Cheers, Olivier. -Message d'origine- De : Lowry, Roy K. [mailto:r...@bodc.ac.uk] Envoyé : jeudi 2 décembre 2010 17:53 À : Jonathan Gregory Cc : Lauret Olivier; Laurence Crosnier; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu; Cristina Tronconi; Bruce Hackett; o.go...@met.no; Thomas LOUBRIEU; Lia Santoleri; Philippe Garnesson Objet : RE: [CF-metadata] Standard name request for ocean colour and iceberg concentration My preference is also for natural English, so am happy with Jonathan's suggestion. I was just pointing out, rather than supporting, the consistency issue. Cheers, Roy. -Original Message- From: Jonathan Gregory [mailto:jonat...@met.reading.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Jonathan Gregory Sent: 02 December 2010 15:37 To: Lowry, Roy K. Cc: Lauret Olivier; Laurence Crosnier; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu; Cristina Tronconi; Bruce Hackett; o.go...@met.no; Thomas LOUBRIEU; Lia Santoleri; Philippe Garnesson Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard name request for ocean colour and iceberg concentration I had the same gut reaction as you and almost came up with the same response until I read the definition Content indicates a quantity per unit area on 369 Standard Names. So, perhaps Olivier is being consistent and tha handful of 'per_unit_area Standard Names are not. I think Olivier is being consistent, but we have synonymous phrases, and in this case I feel that such freedom is useful! We can't make standard names completely systematic, because they also have to be reasonably natural English, I would say. Jonathan -- 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. Cliquez sur l'url suivante https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/MKv+gOOmXGbTndxI!oX7Uue5l2axqqYZUZhEldDcvwCf31V7Uzv75MWuSjXXmfGj8hzVgSrfxsPC8dmstCo9uQ== si ce message est indésirable (pourriel). ___ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Re: [CF-metadata] Standard name request for ocean colour and iceberg concentration
Yes, that's my understanding. Cheers, Roy. From: Lauret Olivier [mailto:olau...@cls.fr] Sent: 03 December 2010 10:22 To: Lowry, Roy K.; Jonathan Gregory Cc: Laurence Crosnier; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu; Cristina Tronconi; Bruce Hackett; o.go...@met.no; Thomas LOUBRIEU; Lia Santoleri; Philippe Garnesson; frederic.me...@jrc.it Subject: RE: [CF-metadata] Standard name request for ocean colour and iceberg concentration Hi all, Thanks, that's fine. That is to say that · number_content_of_icebergs (m-2) becomes number_of_icebergs_per_unit_area Is that right? About the other suggestions, we try to make things so that each entry is a combination of existing CF concepts, except the idea of 'non algal particles' that is now introduced. · mass_concentration_of_inorganic_particles_in_sea_water (kg m-3) · volume_absorption_coefficient_of_radiative_flux_in_sea_water_due_to_dissolved_organic_matter_and_non_algal_particles (m-1) · volume_absorption_coefficient_of_radiative_flux_in_sea_water_due_to_phytoplankton (m-1) · volume_backwards_scattering_coefficient_of_radiative_flux_in_sea_water_due_to_particles (m-1) Comments are welcome, Cheers, Olivier. -Message d'origine- De : Lowry, Roy K. [mailto:r...@bodc.ac.uk] Envoyé : jeudi 2 décembre 2010 17:53 À : Jonathan Gregory Cc : Lauret Olivier; Laurence Crosnier; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu; Cristina Tronconi; Bruce Hackett; o.go...@met.no; Thomas LOUBRIEU; Lia Santoleri; Philippe Garnesson Objet : RE: [CF-metadata] Standard name request for ocean colour and iceberg concentration My preference is also for natural English, so am happy with Jonathan's suggestion. I was just pointing out, rather than supporting, the consistency issue. Cheers, Roy. -Original Message- From: Jonathan Gregory [mailto:jonat...@met.reading.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Jonathan Gregory Sent: 02 December 2010 15:37 To: Lowry, Roy K. Cc: Lauret Olivier; Laurence Crosnier; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu; Cristina Tronconi; Bruce Hackett; o.go...@met.no; Thomas LOUBRIEU; Lia Santoleri; Philippe Garnesson Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard name request for ocean colour and iceberg concentration I had the same gut reaction as you and almost came up with the same response until I read the definition Content indicates a quantity per unit area on 369 Standard Names. So, perhaps Olivier is being consistent and tha handful of 'per_unit_area Standard Names are not. I think Olivier is being consistent, but we have synonymous phrases, and in this case I feel that such freedom is useful! We can't make standard names completely systematic, because they also have to be reasonably natural English, I would say. Jonathan -- 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. Cliquez sur l'url suivante https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/MKv+gOOmXGbTndxI!oX7Uue5l2axqqYZUZhEldDcvwCf31V7Uzv75MWuSjXXmfGj8hzVgSrfxsPC8dmstCo9uQ== si ce message est indésirable (pourriel). -- 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
[CF-metadata] Diffuse radiation standard name
Dear All, I have received via email a request from Karl for one more standard name for CMIP5: For CMIP5 we also include diffuse_downwelling_shortwave_flux_in_air_assuming_clear_sky, but there is not standard name for this quantity at the surface. I therefore propose a new standard name: surface_diffuse_downwelling_shortwave_flux_in_air_assuming_clear_sky Jonathan (also via email) has supported this proposal. This proposal matches closely the syntax of existing names and I don't think it is likely to be controversial in any way. The name is accepted for inclusion in the standard name table. Best wishes, Alison -- Alison Pamment Tel: +44 1235 778065 NCAS/British Atmospheric Data CentreFax: +44 1235 446314 Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Email: alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk Chilton, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K. -- Scanned by iCritical. ___ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
[CF-metadata] potential temperature
Dear Karl I would suggest that we change the definition of potential temperature so that it says *by default* the reference pressure is 1e5 Pa, but that the data var could also have a size-one coordinate variable or a scalar coordinate variable with the standard_name of reference_pressure_for_potential_temperature, which I am proposing as an addition to the standard_name table, that would specify the reference pressure. This would be backward-compatible because any existing use of sea_water_potential_temperature would be with the default reference pressure by definition. I agree that the definition should have said 1e5 Pa, not sea level pressure, but I am sure that people will have used it as 1e5 Pa and not worried about the difference. If anyone had noticed the definition and been concerned, they would have queried it before. The same issue arises for potential density. Is it OK to use a reference_pressure_for_potential_temperature to define potential density? I think so. It is the temperature which changes; the potential density is computed from the potential temperature. Cheers Jonathan ___ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
