---
Philip Cameron-Smith, p...@llnl.gov, CliMA Group Leader, Lawrence Livermore
Nat. Lab.
---
From: alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk [mailto:alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk]
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 9:27 AM
To: Cameron-smith, Philip
Hi All,
Even though I personally have one foot in the radiation camp and like
irradiance, I prefer that CF go with 'flux' rather than 'irradiance' in order
to be consistent with all of the existing radiative flux std_names. Hence, my
vote is for:
solar_flux (W m-2)
Hi All,
My apologies for not being so involved recently. I am catching up with this
thread.
I also vote no to changing 'flux' to 'flux_density'.
In addition to the points that Alison makes, I add the following:
+) If someone searches the descriptions for 'irradiance', the appropriate
Hi Jonathan,
This looks fine to me :-).
Best wishes,
Philip
---
Dr Philip Cameron-Smith, p...@llnl.gov, Lawrence Livermore National Lab.
---
From:
Hi John, et al.,
There were institutional problems, which impacted the CF web server, starting
yesterday.
The good news is that the institutional problems seem to have been resolved,
and the PCMDI staff have brought up the CF website again :-).
It is now working for me.
Best wishes,
Hi Tom,
Thanks for your suggestions :-).
This is not really my field, but I have worked a bit with isotopes and fluxes,
so wanted to comment on your second question.
From a CF point of view, I think it would be a mistake for one type of
variable (sinking_flux) to have different physical
Hi All,
Is there, or should there be, a distinction between downward motion of
particles relative to the water, compared to downward motion relative to a
fixed reference frame? (the difference being whether the water motion is
included)
Best wishes,
Philip
...@llnl.gov, Lawrence Livermore National Lab.
---
-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Wrotny [mailto:jwro...@aer.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 12:40 PM
To: Cameron-smith, Philip
Cc: Jonathan Gregory; cf-metadata
or models or thermometers -- was much more
refined. So we needed more refined terms to make things comparable again.
On Oct 4, 2013, at 17:28, Cameron-smith, Philip cameronsmi...@llnl.gov
wrote:
Hi Jonathan (Wrotny),
The general practice of CF is that quantities that are 'equivalent', ie
Hi Jonathan (Wrotny), Jonathan (Gregory), et al.,
I am a little surprised.
It is explicitly stated in the proposed description that
land_surface_skin_temperature can be taken to be equivalent to
surface_temperature over land areas.
In the description for surface_temperature, it indicates
Hi All,
I think Steve's email (below) is a fair summary of how I see the current state
of the discussion too.
In order to move the discussion forward, I have put forward below a simple
strawman suggestion that is very limited, but which I think would capture the
most useful piece of
Hi All,
I like Steve Hankin's point (below) about 'powerful' versus 'interoperable' .
I hadn't thought about it quite that way before :-).
From my point of view, I do see value in including hierarchical information.
The most useful case I have seen mentioned so far involves putting datasets
Hi Jonathan (Gregory),
Thank you for reminding me about the height issue. I would say that the height
of met station screened boxes is close enough to the surface to allow
comparison with the quantity calculated by other means, so I think the
description is fine :-).
Best wishes,
Hi John,
Would it be appropriate to add _expressed_as_carbon, as indicated in the
description (which follows an existing CF pattern)?
Best wishes,
Philip
Sent by Philip Cameron-Smith from his blackberry.
- Original Message -
From: John Graybeal
this clearer.
The existing name could be made an alias of one _per_unit_area if that
is generally thought to be a good idea.
Besy wishes
Jonathan
From: Cameron-smith, Philip
cameronsmi...@llnl.govmailto:cameronsmi...@llnl.gov
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] new standard
Hi Seth, et al.,
air_pressure_of_lifted_parcel_at_origin
air_pressure_of_lifted_parcel_at_finish
Would it make sense to replace 'origin' with 'start'?I can think of a
couple of ways 'origin' might cause confusion: it can refer to the (0,0) point
in a coordinate system, and a parcel
Hi Jonathan (Wrotny),
I am not sure if my last email got through. Is it possible to define the
vertical extent of 'surface' better? Eg, do you mean the bottom 1cm, 10m, 1km,
mixed layer?
We might not want to be too precise, so as to allow wiggle room for other ways
of generating the lifted
Hi John,
I don't recall the original discussion. However, I do work on a problem
involving both dissolved methane and methane that is in bubbles, and the
distinction is critical, ie we need to know whether a plume of bubbles will
make it to the ocean surface.
Best wishes,
Philip
Sent by
-Smith from his blackberry.
- Original Message -
From: Lowry, Roy K. [mailto:r...@bodc.ac.uk]
Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2013 02:52 AM
To: Cameron-smith, Philip; 'grayb...@marinemetadata.org'
grayb...@marinemetadata.org; 'cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu'
cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: RE: [CF
Hi Jim,
I contacted someone at PCMDI, and I believe you should now be setup.
I think they are going to look at the registration process to see if it can be
made to work better.
If you have more problems, you can contact me directly and I'll see what I can
do.
Best wishes,
Philip
Hi Steve,
I think your suggestion has merit. One question is : Would your suggestion
make any other changes, eg to std_name modifiers or cell_methods?
If nothing else, it would be good to put something in the CF documentation that
explains what is going on, and why (perhaps along the lines of
Hi All,
I can think of two different cases:
1) Repeated measurement are made of a physical quantity. The best estimate of
the physical quantity is then the mean with the standard error. In this case
the standard deviation is really a property of the measurement system rather
than the
by Philip Cameron-Smith from his blackberry.
- Original Message -
From: Lowry, Roy K. [mailto:r...@bodc.ac.uk]
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 01:57 AM
To: Cameron-smith, Philip; Alessandra Giorgetti agiorge...@ogs.trieste.it;
sdn2-t...@listes.seadatanet.org sdn2-t...@listes.seadatanet.org
criteria.
Units: s
-Aleksandar
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Aleksandar Jelenak - NOAA Affiliate
aleksandar.jele...@noaa.gov wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Cameron-smith, Philip
cameronsmi...@llnl.gov wrote:
Hi, Edward,
_sample_ seems a good alternative.
I still like
-Original Message-
From: Aleksandar Jelenak - NOAA Affiliate
[mailto:aleksandar.jele...@noaa.gov]
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 2:06 PM
To: John Graybeal
Cc: Cameron-smith, Philip; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New Standard Names for Satellite Data
On Fri
@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New Standard Names for Satellite Data
Hi Philip,
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Cameron-smith, Philip
cameronsmi...@llnl.gov wrote:
it may be a good idea to make the std_name capture your concept more
precisely.
I was thinking to propose first
Hi Aleksander,
I used 'repeat' to capture the concept that the interval is from one
measurement until the time the measurement is repeated (in the same location)
I can imagine many other types of intervals, eg interval between measurement at
wavelength1 and wavelength2 when using a filter
-smith, Philip
cameronsmi...@llnl.gov wrote:
5) time_interval
An interval of time.
Units: s
Can you clarify what you want for time_interval that cannot be encoded with
the existing CF?
I want to store time intervals between collocated observations made by two
satellite instruments
Hi Aleksandar,
5) time_interval
An interval of time.
Units: s
Can you clarify what you want for time_interval that cannot be encoded with the
existing CF?
Best wishes,
Philip
Sent by Philip Cameron-Smith from his blackberry.
- Original Message -
From: Aleksandar Jelenak -
Hi Roy,
This looks sensible to me.
Philip
---
Dr Philip Cameron-Smith, p...@llnl.gov, Lawrence Livermore National Lab.
---
From: CF-metadata
.
---
From: John Graybeal [mailto:jgrayb...@ucsd.edu]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:48 PM
To: Cameron-smith, Philip
Cc: Lowry, Roy K.; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu; sdn2-net...@seadatanet.org
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] sea_water_pressure
It looks sensible to me, too, but I
Hi Jonathan, Martin, Angelika,
These look like good additions to me :-).
Jonathan: we already have std_names without a fixed ratio, although it isn't
explicit in the descriptions (eg,
atmosphere_mass_content_of_anthropogenic_nmvoc_expressed_as_carbon). Indeed,
this is one of the main reasons
Hi All,
All of the std_names that count atoms and molecules currently have canonical
units that use moles and meters, so I would want to continue that.
I had not realized that udunits did not include molecules.
To the udunits experts: How hard is it to add 'molecules' permanently, using
Hi Andreas, et al,
All the std_names seem to follow existing patterns.
As mentioned in my previous email, I think the units should be mol/m2 for
consistency.
Best wishes,
Philip
---
Dr Philip Cameron-Smith,
Hi Andreas,
To propose a new standard name, the burden is initially put on the proposer to:
1) Check to see if a std_name already exists for the desired quantity
(http://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/documents/cf-standard-names/ I like to use the HTML
search capability)
2) If nothing exists, then you
Hi Andreas,
Good news: we have recently been discussing just such a quantity on this email
list. The quantity was specifically for ozone, but can easily be proposed for
other species.
The title of the email discussion was: new standard name proposal for total
ozone in DU.
The current status
Hi Jonathan, Martin, et al.,
Although Mass-Moles and frequency-period are examples of pairs of physically
different units that are trivially convertible, DU is subtly different because
it is defined in two physically different but equivalent ways.
My preference is to add an additional
.
---
-Original Message-
From: alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk [mailto:alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk]
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 4:26 AM
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Cc: heiko.kl...@met.no; Cameron-smith, Philip
Subject: RE: [CF-metadata] FW: Standard_name for cloud-cover
Hi All,
After considerable thought, I do support addition of this std_name, but
recommend that we add a comment to the description (as described below).
The problem is that
atmosphere_mole_content_of_ozone (proposed, units = moles/m2, typically
expressed in DU)
and
@csiro.au; jgrayb...@ucsd.edu; Cameron-smith, Philip
Cc: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu; j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk
Subject: RE: [CF-metadata] Another potentially useful extension to the
standard_name table
Hello Simon,
If you're referring to syntactic duplicates then providing the controlled
Hi Martin,
One tiny point if we do follow your suggestion. Many programs automatically
highlight a link so it can be clicked on. Unfortunately, my email program
(Outlook 2010) misidentifies the link. Specifically, your line
Hi All,
The problem as I see it, is that the two versions of Dobson Unit are
effectively equivalent via the ideal gas law. Hence, I see Dobson unit get
defined both ways, and since DU is used as the unit the difference is hidden
and irrelevant, except for CF because we insist on connecting it
Hi Christophe,
I think what you want is
equivalent_thickness_at_stp_of_atmosphere_ozone_content, which has units of
meters, and a definition of:
stp means standard temperature (0 degC) and pressure (101325 Pa). Content
indicates a quantity per unit area. The atmosphere content of a quantity
Hi,
It would be good if the description of toa_bidirectional_reflectance could be
updated to reflect this clarification.
What is the procedure for updating a description?
Best wishes,
Philip
---
Dr Philip Cameron-Smith,
Hi All,
There are endless ways to slice, dice, and combine emission categories. In
practice, Martin's proposal is about as good as it gets, and although there is
the theoretical possibility for massive numbers of std_names, I think in
practice it will be large but manageable.
The most
Hi Olivier, et al.,
I note that we have several different types of sea_level defined in CF. I have
copied here the ones I found (there may be others). Does one of these meet your
needs?
global_average_sea_level_change
Global average sea level change is due to change in volume of the water in
In principle a measurement could be humidified, although that seems unlikely.
How about _due_to_specified_humidity. That will indicate that someone needs
to check on what the humidity is, and will cover all possibilities.
I would therefore suggest the following:
_due_to_ambient_aerosol
.
---
From: TOYODA Eizi [mailto:toy...@gfd-dennou.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 10:42 PM
To: Cameron-smith, Philip; Wright, Bruce; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] FW: Standard_name for cloud-cover by phenomenon
Hi Philip,
Very precicely speaking, what we propose is simulation
Hi Jonathan, et al.,
Sounds good to me. Especially the part about moving to a more grammatical
system.
Best wishes,
Philip
---
Dr Philip Cameron-Smith, p...@llnl.gov, Lawrence Livermore National Lab.
: Monday, May 14, 2012 1:12 AM
To: Heiko Klein
Cc: Cameron-smith, Philip; Jonathan Gregory; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard_name for cloud-cover by phenomenon
Hi Heiko,
Sorry about perturbing.
You're right. Currently nobody has requested other low cloud fraction
Hi All,
I am not wild about using 'type'. I had to read the terms several times before
I figured out what was being meant, because I could read it different
grammatical ways.
A second problem is that it seems a particular definition will be linked to
these terms (or did I miss something?),
.
---
-Original Message-
From: Markus Fiebig [mailto:markus.fie...@nilu.no]
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 8:08 AM
To: Cameron-smith, Philip; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: RE: [CF-metadata] new standard names for surface aerosol
optical properties
Hi
Hi Markus,
Thanks for taking on this task :-).
Some general comments:
1) There is no mention of frequency in your definitions. This is true for some
of the existing std_name definitions too. However, I note that the description
of some of the existing std_names (eg
Hi All,
I have a few concerns.
1) Normally std_names are for quantities which both models and observations try
to calculate/measure. What is being proposed here is a std_name that includes
the method of calculation/measurement. Such std_names have long been
controversial, so there is
Hi All,
While working through recent std_name proposals for radiative transfer
quantities, I encountered what appear to me to be duplicate vocabulary within
the existing std_name list for a couple of terms:
1) _attentuation_ and _extinction_ appear to have the same physical meaning,
although
Hi All,
I try to keep my eye on how we will be able to create a vocabulary and grammar
for std_names in the future, and I think the current construct
(due_to_emission_from_source) is the best in this regard.
If only we could move in that direction more quickly.
Yours truly,
Philip
Hi All,
Would it work to include an 'unknown' scale?
Best wishes,
Philip
---
Dr Philip Cameron-Smith, p...@llnl.gov, Lawrence Livermore National Lab.
.
---
-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Gregory [mailto:j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk]
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 9:27 PM
To: Cameron-smith, Philip
Cc: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] daily maximum of running 8-hour means
Dear
Dear Jonathan,
Both methods seem reasonable to me. The first method has the advantage of
explicitly recording the ranges, which can be helpful for verifying that one
understands what was done. The second method has the advantage of encoding it
all in a second line, which is a bit harder to
Hi Jonathan, et al.,
Legal air-quality standards often apply to multiple time-averaging lengths
simultaneously, eg in California the law imposes both a 1-hour limit of
0.09ppm, and an 8-hour limit of 0.07ppm (see
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf). The UK also uses multiple
Hi Martin,
Lots of good suggestions. My thoughts are interleaved below.
Philip
---
Dr Philip Cameron-Smith, p...@llnl.gov, Lawrence Livermore National Lab.
Hi Jim,
I agree with Roy: I also think it is better to keep methodologies and
instruments out of standard names and in ancillary attributes/variables.
Otherwise, the std_name list will become even more unwieldy, and become nothing
more than a documentation service for every model and
Hi Jim,
To clarify your request:
'anomaly' currently means 'difference from climatology' in CF. Is that what
you want here?
If so, then this would seem to be a logical extension to brightness_temperature.
Best wishes,
Philip
this added as a
valid standard name.
I had originally assumed that adding _anomaly to a base standard name
would be a valid thing to do, but I can't find any support for this.
Am
I missing something?
Grace and peace,
Jim
On 8/25/2011 4:33 PM, Cameron-smith, Philip wrote:
Hi Jim
Hi Glenn,
I would interpret 'm-3 kg' as (1/m3)*kg == kg/m3. Or did I misunderstand
your email?
It does look funny to have the denominator unit first, though.
Best wishes,
Philip
---
Dr Philip Cameron-Smith,
Hi John,
I think this was an issue worth raising. There certainly seems to be the
potential for ambiguity.
I just searched the CF archive to find any approved examples of either
physical_quantity_by_instrument or physical_state_of_instrument.
I had thought there were cases of the former
Hi All,
Reinforcing Martin's point, if a plotting package produces plots labeled with
1e-9 as a unit, I will manually edit the plot to replace the unit with mol/mol,
kg/kg, Kg(CH4)/kg(air), or whatever is appropriate. Otherwise it produces
great confusion, since the numerical values are
.
---
-Original Message-
From: cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu [mailto:cf-metadata-
boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Tomoo Ogura
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 1:57 AM
To: Bert Jagers; Cameron-smith, Philip; Jonathan Gregory
Hi Martin,
I'm glad you like the idea too.
My suggestion was to only take half the step that you are suggesting (at least
for now). Specifically, I suggest that we still maintain the current master
list, and that names must be approved before being added. It is just that a
proposer will be
-Original Message-
From: Tomoo Ogura [mailto:og...@nies.go.jp]
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 7:23 PM
To: Cameron-smith, Philip; Jonathan Gregory
Cc: Jennifer Kay; Yoko Tsushima; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu; Tomoo Ogura
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Proposal for new standard names
Hi
-Original Message-
From: Tomoo Ogura [mailto:og...@nies.go.jp]
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 11:49 PM
To: Cameron-smith, Philip; Jonathan Gregory
Cc: Jennifer Kay; Yoko Tsushima; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu; Tomoo Ogura
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Proposal for new standard names
Dear
Hi All,
The last time we discussed formalizing grammar and vocabulary, or an ontology,
it was clearly hard to get agreement. It would also be a lot of hard work and
could be a lot of work to amend and modify if it is done too narrowly.
I suggest we consider a weaker option, which I think
-smith, Philip
Cc: Jennifer Kay; Yoko Tsushima; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu; Tomoo Ogura
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Proposal for new standard names
Dear Jonathan and Philip Cc: Jen,
Many thanks for your comments.
My understanding of the issue is as follows (please correct me if I'm
wrong
-Original Message-
From: cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu [mailto:cf-metadata-
boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Gregory
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 5:25 AM
To: Tomoo Ogura
Cc: Jennifer Kay; Yoko Tsushima; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Proposal
Hi Maarten,
Sorry for this last minute reply (I don't think this was addressed before). My
comment relates to the following proposed names:
- thermodynamic_phase_of_cloud_water_particles_at_cloud_top (status_flag
liquid, ice and mixed): The thermodynamic phase of particles at the top of the
Sounds like a good idea to me.
Philip
---
Dr Philip Cameron-Smith, p...@llnl.gov, Lawrence Livermore National Lab.
---
-Original Message-
From:
Hi All,
I haven't noticed any discussion in the email stream about the type of diameter.
There are several physically different diameters that get used in the aerosol
community, the main ones being:
1) Actual, or geometric diameter (But what does that mean for non-spherical
particles? Some
...@exeter.ac.uk]
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 10:50 AM
To: Cameron-smith, Philip; alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk
Cc: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] CMIP5 carbon cycle standard names
Hi all,
I'm getting confused now.
I understood Alison last proposal as keeping only one name
Hi All,
Even if the dataset doesn't have vertical information, if it includes aircraft
emissions then the physical quantity it is quantifying is the vertical integral
rather than the surface emission. In which case I would favour
tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_
If there are no aircraft
79 matches
Mail list logo
