Burkhard/Jonathan
I don't see a problem with having standard names classifying the type of a unit of earth surface area. The problem comes when other phenomena are attached to such a classification through the standard name, especially when the boundaries between classes are diffuse (e.g. observational temperature transect from sea to estuary to river to lake).
It strikes me that there are other 'planet surface classes' that may be required by future GCMs (forest, desert etc.). Other domains (such as the LandSat community) must already have vocabularies
with defined terms set up for these that we could possibly adopt.
Anyone come across anything?
Cheers, Roy.
DISCLAIMER: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential
and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are those of the author and do
not represent the views of NERC unless otherwise explicitly stated. The
information contained in this e-mail may be subject to public disclosure
under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Unless the information is
legally exempt from disclosure, the confidentiality of this e-mail and your
reply cannot be guaranteed.
>>> Burkhardt Rockel <Burkhardt.Rockel at gkss.de> 11/04/05 1:13 PM >>>
Hi Roy and Jonathan,
using "sea" instead of "lake" would be fine with me. There is the
long name anyway that I can use for further description.
However, I need at least one parameter that contains information how
to distinguish between ocean and lake in a gridbox. The model needs
to know for which grid box the lake subroutine should be switched
on. Can we introduce a parameter called "lake_area_fraction" analogue
to "sea_area_fraction" and "land_area_fraction"? Or do ypu have any
other Idea how to distinguish between ocean and lake grid boxes?
By the way, what is the difference between "sea" and "ocean". When
should I use "ocean" and when "sea" for standard_names?
Regards
Burkhardt
Am 04.11.2005 um 13:32 schrieb Roy Lowry:
> Dear All,
>
> I share Jonathan's concerns and think defining a separate set of
> names for lakes is starting down a very slippery slope.
>
> Cheers, Roy.
>
> DISCLAIMER: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are
> confidential
> and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
> they are
> addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are those of the author
> and do
> not represent the views of NERC unless otherwise explicitly
> stated. The
> information contained in this e-mail may be subject to public
> disclosure
> under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Unless the information is
> legally exempt from disclosure, the confidentiality of this e-mail
> and your
> reply cannot be guaranteed.
>
>>>> Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk> 10/31/05 9:30 AM >>>
> Dear All
>
> Burkhardt proposed a list of standard names associated with lakes:
>
>> land_lake_fraction 1
>> lake_depth m
>> lake_surface_fetch m
>> depth_of_thermal_active_lake_layer m
>> temperature_at_top_of_sediments_layer K
>> temperature_at_bottom_of_sediments_layer K
>> solar_attenuation_coefficient_in_lake m-1
>> lake_surface_temperature K
>> lake_surface_snow_temperature K
>> lake_surface_ice_temperature K
>> lake_watercolumn_temperature K
>> lake_mixed_layer_temperature K
>> lake_bottom_temperature K
>> lake_shape_factor 1
>> lake_surface_snow_thickness m
>> lake_surface_ice_thickness m
>> lake_mixed_layer_thickness m
>> thickness_sediments_upper_layer_of_lake m
>
> Before we try to develop precise definitions of these, I think we
> have to
> decide in general whether we want separate names for lakes, given
> that many of
> the concepts are the same as for the ocean. The distinction is
> quite arbitrary
> after all: considering, say, Lake Victoria, Lake Superior, the
> Caspian Sea, the
> Black Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, the Atlantic Ocean - where does
> one draw the
> line between lake and ocean?
>
> We have quite a lot of standard names for ocean, sea ice and sea water
> properties which could be used for lake, lake ice and lake water
> properties,
> and likewise for rivers. Would it be confusing to use ocean/sea
> names for
> lakes? If it would, another way to avoid separately specifying a
> whole set of
> lake names would be to define aliases which map ocean->lake, sea-
> >lake and
> sea_water-> lake_water in existing standard names.
>
> Comments and suggestions welcome. Cheers
>
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
-----------
Dr. Burkhardt Rockel
GKSS Forschungszentrum
Max-Planck-Strasse
D-21502 Geesthacht
Germany
Phone: +49 4152 87 2008
Fax: +49 4152 87 2020
Email: Burkhardt.Rockel at gkss.de
www:
http://coast.gkss.de
-----------
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Received on Fri Nov 04 2005 - 06:36:43 GMT
