Charlie and John:
Thanks for the discussion, this is really good background information for
the list.
The effective or radiative center height that we retrieve can be at
least 1 km below the true cloud top as measured by a lidar. We also
produce a cloud top height product that matches well
Dear Kris, John, et al.
If you go this route, a perhaps clearer option for the name is suggested by
an existing pattern:
height_at_cloud_top_defined_by_infrared_radiation (or
_infrared_reflection, or something similar)
This has the added benefit that it puts the emphasis on what is
Dear Karl
I seem to recall that the normal to a geoid surface does not in
general point in the same direction as the normal to the ellipsoid
surface at the same place. If that is true, would that be added
justification for giving different standard names to heights
relative to those
Dear Balaji
I understand it's blurry, and I suppose all I'm
arguing for is some general vigilance against proliferation of
names.
I completely agree with that sentiment! The blurriness comes in places where
coordinates are discrete, from a permissible set, such as area_types. This was
done to
I think that the name should encode the method if the result is
sensitive to the method.
Here there be dragons. Can it be said that this is not a different
measurement of the same thing, but a measurement of a different
property?
Yes. Kris says it is not adjusted to be a true cloud-top
