Of course no problem Alison,
Actually I was not totally sure that I got all e-mails on this topic and if
I was registered on the good CF mailing-list..Hereafter my feelings about
this discussion:
-->foundation_sea_surface_temperature
I prefer the second approach suggested by Alison and Jonathan, i.e:
"sea_surface_temperature_at_diurnal_thermocline_base"
It is (I think) more consistent with both the physical meaning of this
quantity and the way standard names are build, isn't it?
-->SST_depth, sea_surface_temperature_at_depth_z
I agree with Alison point of view, "sea_water_temperature" exists and in
principle may fit to this part of SST measurement.
-->sub-skin_sea_surface_temperature
-->skin_layer_sea_surface_temperature
Jonathan suggested to use "sea_water_temperature" and distinguish by the
depth. I personnaly prefer keeping the "layer" point of view, I think the
physical meaning for oceanographers remains clear, and that the layer
notion is really important both in meteorology and oceanography:
troposphere/tropopause, thermocline etc etc. Some CF standard names are
already based on some layers; I'm affraid if we define variables only
regarding to the z coordinate we loose an important aspect of Earth
sciences: the scale notion, which is usually the base of our approach.
I'd rather that we introduce the standard names as modified by Alison:
"sea_surface_temperature_in_subskin_layer" and
"sea_surface_temperature_in_skin_layer"
-->interface_sea_surface_temperature
I agree with Alison, "surface_temperature" is already provided by standard
names table and could fit.
Maybe a feedback from GHRSST-PP science team would be interesting.
Greetings
Olivier.
Olivier Lauret
CLS Space Oceanography Division
Data Information and Diffusion
8-10 rue Hermes,
31526 Ramonville-St-Agne, Cedex, France
Email: olivier.lauret at cls.fr
Tel: (+33) (0) 561 39 48 51
Fax:(+33) (0) 561 39 48 51
Internet:
http://www.cls.fr
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/
Received on Thu Jul 19 2007 - 03:45:38 BST
