Dear Stefan,
Thank you for your comments. I think including toa in these names is a
good idea. The names would then be:
toa_shortwave_cloud_radiative_effect; Wm-2
toa_longwave_cloud_radiative_effect; Wm-2
toa_cloud_radiative_effect; Wm-2
Best wishes,
Alison
------
Alison Pamment Tel: +44 1235 778065
NCAS/British Atmospheric Data Centre Fax: +44 1235 446314
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Email: J.A.Pamment at rl.ac.uk
Chilton, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan Kinne [mailto:stefan.kinne at zmaw.de]
> Sent: 09 November 2007 12:43
> To: Pamment, JA (Alison)
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard names for cloud radiative
properties
>
> Hi there,
>
> I think it should clearly state that this concerns the cloud
> radiative effect at the TOA - because there are also cloud radiative
> on other fluxes (such as surface downward or surface net fluxes)
>
> Thus include ToA in the names please
>
> Stefan
>
> At 12:28 PM 11/9/2007 +0000, you wrote:
> >Dear All,
> >
> >Three new standard names have been proposed:
> >
> >shortwave_cloud_radiative_effect; Wm-2
> >longwave_cloud_radiative_effect; Wm-2
> >cloud_radiative_effect; Wm-2
> >
> >There has already been some email discussion of these proposals (see
> >below). I think the proposed names and definitions are fine. If
there
> >are any further comments on these names please send them to the
mailing
> >list in the usual way.
> >
> >Best wishes,
> >Alison
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Karl Taylor [mailto:taylor13 at llnl.gov]
> > > Sent: 08 November 2007 17:02
> > > To: Pamment, JA (Alison)
> > > Cc: Mark Webb; Jonathan Gregory; Robert Pincus
> > > Subject: Re:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I think it's unanimous (I know from previous conversations that
Robert
> > > prefers "effect").
> > >
> > > I therefore propose we define:
> > >
> > > "shortwave_cloud_radiative_effect",
> > > "longwave_cloud_radiative_effect"
> > > and for the net effect, simply "cloud_radiative_effect"
> > >
> > > We should note in the description that the cloud radiative effect
is
> > > often referred to as "cloud radiative forcing". The longwave
cloud
> > > radiative effect is the difference between
> > > toa_outgoing_longwave_flux_assuming_clear_sky and
> > > toa_outgoing_longwave_flux. The shortwave cloud radiative effect
is
> >the
> > > difference between toa_net_downward_shortwave_flux and
> > > toa_net_downward_shortwave_flux_assuming_clear_sky. The cloud
> >radiative
> > > effect is the sum of the shortwave_cloud_radiative_effect and the
> > > longwave_cloud_radiative_effect.
> > >
> > > Alison, could you take it from here or remind me what the next
step
> >is?
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > > Karl
> > >
> > >
> > > Pamment, JA (Alison) wrote:
> > > > Hi Mark and Karl,
> > > >
> > > > I see no problem in calling something cloud radiative effect in
a
> > > > standard name and explaining in the definition that this is also
> > > > commonly called cloud radiative forcing. This type of thing has
> >already
> > > > been done for some names. For example, in the definition of
> > > > cloud_area_fraction it says 'Cloud area fraction is also called
> >"cloud
> > > > amount" and "cloud cover".'
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Alison
> > > >
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: Mark Webb [mailto:mark.webb at metoffice.gov.uk]
> > > >> Sent: 08 November 2007 08:13
> > > >> To: Karl Taylor
> > > >> Cc: Pamment, JA (Alison); Jonathan Gregory; Robert Pincus; Mark
> >Webb
> > > >> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Re. chemicals and aerosols
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi Karl,
> > > >>
> > > >> CRE is a nice term because it is analogous to 'greenhouse
effect'.
> > > >>
> > > >> However, when you use it people often query it because they are
> > > >> familiar with the term CRF (and of course CRF is the term used
in
> >the
> > > >> vast majority of studies.)
> > > >>
> > > >> Is it possible to call these things CRE but also to note that
they
> > > >> are often also known as CRF in the documentation?
> > > >>
> > > >> Mark
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 10:15:24AM -0800, Karl Taylor wrote:
> > > >>> Hi all,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> We need to define for the CF-conventions a standard name for
> >"cloud
> > > >>> forcing". Before proposing something to the CF discussion
group,
> >I
> > > >>> would like your input. The following suggestions have been
made:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> "shortwave_cloud_radiative_forcing",
> > > > "longwave_cloud_radiative_forcing"
> > > >>> and for the net forcing, simply "cloud_radiative_forcing"
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Alternatively,
> > > >>> "shortwave_cloud_radiative_effect",
> > > > "longwave_cloud_radiative_effect"
> > > >>> and for the net effect, simply "cloud_radiative_effect"
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Which do you think is better and why, or are there other
> > > > suggestions?
> > > >>> By convention these are (invariably?) defined as positive down
and
> > > >>> assessed at the top of the atmosphere, though I suppose one
might
> > > > want
> > > >>> to compute a surface cloud radiative effect. The nominal
units
> > > > would be
> > > >>> W/m**2.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Feel free to ask others to comment.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Cheers,
> > > >>> Karl
> > > >>>
> > > >
> >
> >------
> >Alison Pamment Tel: +44 1235 778065
> >NCAS/British Atmospheric Data Centre Fax: +44 1235 446314
> >Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Email: J.A.Pamment at rl.ac.uk
> >Chilton, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >CF-metadata mailing list
> >CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> >http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
> Stefan Kinne
> MPI_Meteorology
> Bundesstrasse 53
> 20146 Hamburg, Ger
> Tel: +49 40 41173383
> Fax: +49 40 41173298
> stefan.kinne at zmaw.de
Received on Mon Nov 12 2007 - 03:44:00 GMT
