Dear Olivier
That is my understanding of the position too. If it is possible to define
depths for skin and subskin that would be good. However if they can be
clearly defined in some other way, that's fine too. It would be less
satisfactory to introduce vague terms that will cause future difficulties.
The distinction must be clear between the quantities that are being named,
so that comparable quantities have the same names.
Best wishes
Jonathan
----- Forwarded message from Olivier Lauret <olauret at cls.fr> -----
>
> Dear all,
>
> The discussion about introducing new standard names for SST raised a lot of
> interesting questions; If I understood correctly and try to synthesize the
> way CF could meet GHRSST-PP science team requirements for SST, we may have
> the following choice:
>
> *SSTint (GHRSST-PP): surface_temperature (CF)
>
> *SSTskin (GHRSST-PP):
> - sea_surface_temperature_in_skin_layer?
> - skin_sea_surface_temperature?
> - sea_skin_temperature?
> - sea_water_temperature with a depth attribute ?
> (I would personnally vote for a name with "skin" explicitly written in,
> with no depth attribute, like the first three ones)
>
> *SSTsubskin (GHRSST-PP):
> - sea_surface_temperature_in_subskin_layer?
> - subskin_sea_surface_temperature?
> - sea_subskin_temperature?
> - sea_water_temperature with a depth attribute ?
> (same comments as for SSTskin)
>
> *SSTdepth (GHRSST-PP): sea_water_temperature (CF)
>
> *SSTfnd (GHRSST-PP):
> - sea_surface_temperature_at_diurnal_thermocline_base
>
> Do everybody agree, or is anything missing? If yes, we shall only pick new
> names for SSTskin, SSTsubskin and SSTfnd: the "final cut" is for Craig?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Olivier.
Received on Fri Aug 24 2007 - 09:22:22 BST
