Hi,
My personal opinions (not those of NSIDC):
In any case, I would like your advice for standardized naming of:
a new area type for melt ponds. Should it be "melt_pond" or "melt_water_pond", or should
it specify that this is on top of sea ice "melt_water_pond_at_top_of_sea_ice".
there is some
Dear Steve
I agree that one can encode distances below the surface as negative and it's
often done. My point is that the CF standard name of "depth" is not appropriate
for such values; one should use "height" instead. The choice of which standard
name to use corresponds to the choice in a mathemat
Hi Jonathan,
A quick message here, intended as much as anything for the email
archives, to make it clear that differences of viewpoint remain about
the use of negative depth values. The alternative viewpoint is that the
implicit semantics in the term "depth" is its _realm_: the variable name
Dear Thomas
> In my understanding, sea_ice_area_fraction refers to sea ice concentration as
> seen "from below" (where area(ice)+area(ocean water) = area(cell)).
Yes, I think so too. Sea ice with melt ponds is still sea ice. In terms of
area types, sea = ice_free_sea + sea_ice.
You need a new a
Dear all,
During early summer, especially in the Arctic, melt water ponds form on top of
sea ice. Seen from above, there are thus 3 types of surfaces: "sea ice", "melt
ponds", "ocean water" (in between the ice floes). Seen from below, there are
only 2 area types: "sea ice", and "ocean water".
It is my understanding that sun glint is associated with reflection of
sunlight off of a body of water. I would
suggest amending the definition to the following:
The angle between an incident beam of solar radiation and the outgoing
beam specularly reflected at a sea surface.
Sincerely,
Gary
