Dear John,
I agree that sea_surface_temperature is vague, and when possible folks
should specify instead foundation, subskin, skin, or
surface_temperature. No one has yet said what the difference is between
skin temperature and surface_temperature, so I guess you could
substitute one for the
Dear Jonathan G.
[The following discussion has little relevance to CF standard names (so
most of you shouldn't bother reading this), but scientifically I think
it's worth discussing further, so hopefully Jonathan will at least
continue.]
I was startled when you wrote earlier that in models,
Confirming what Jonathan says, sea_surface_temperature was was used to describe
data (including observations going many decades back) that reflected a variety
of locations -- right at the interface (with remote sensors), or varying
distances under the skin (with in situ sensors, including bucket
Dear Karl
As I wrote in a previous posting, I think surface_temperature is either a some-
what vague concept, to be used when it is not critical to say exactly what is
meant (that's fine - standard names have always supported a range of precision
in concepts), or it's an idealisation which really
Dear all,
O.K. I withdraw my suggestion to deprecate sea_surface_skin_temperature.
I do think the definitions should say how skin temperature differs from
surface temperature. Maybe someone can explain that in a few words.
As I understand it, temperature is only defined when molecules are
i
Dear Karl
Like Roy, I don't think we should deprecate sea_surface_skin_temperature.
Although I cannot remember the arguments - which must be apparent in the
mailing list archive - I do recall that it was a careful and long discussion
with Craig which led to the introduction of the various SST name
Dear Jonathan
> Standard Name: atmosphere_mass_content_of_volcanic_ash
That seems fine to me. I wonder if the definition should say something about
what volcanic ash is and is not.
Cheers
Jonathan
___
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.ed
Hello Jonathan
> The reason why this is hard to settle is that, as we have agreed, it has no
> implication at all for the netCDF file. It is just a matter of interpretation.
This doesn't seem right to me, my thought process is addressing how we encode
concepts and what concepts are allowed to b
Hello Karl,
There have been extensive debates in the observational oceanographic community
on the concept of 'sea surface temperature' - much of it on this list led by
Craig Donlan - that resulted in the addition of
sea_surface_foundation_temperature, sea_surface_skin_temperature and
sea_surfac
