Dear Craig and all,
Thanks for getting back on this topic. I have the feeling that everybody is agree to follow GHRSST definitions but there are only a few details to deal with..
About introducing
1) SSTint (GHRSST-PP) ?? surface_temperature (CF)
2) SSTskin (GHRSST-PP) ?? skin_layer_sea_surface_temperature (CF)
3) SSTsubskin (GHRSST-PP) ?? subskin_sea_surface_temperature (CF)
4) SSTdepth (GHRSST-PP) ?? sea_water_temperature (CF)
I guess everybody is OK on this. There remain only doubts on the semantics on 2) and 3), as Jonathan suggested to use ?sea_[sub]skin_temperature?. I?d personally prefer ?sea_[sub]skin_temperature? too: CF currently proposes ?sea_surface_temperature? and ?sea_water_temperature?, following this logic it is quite natural to introduce the quantities ?sea_subskin_temperature? and ?sea_skin_temperature?, isn?t it? Anyway for you Craig there is still the possibility to freely define ?skin_layer_sea_surface_temperature? and ?subskin_sea_surface_temperature ? as the long_name attributes.
5) SSTfnd (GHRSST-PP)?? foundation_sea_surface_temperature
I am not sure Craig received Jonathan?s answer on this (hereafter, it was a ?reply? instead of a ?reply all? and maybe Craig?s gmail address is not registered on CF mailing list)?
And about John?s suggestion for MMI, it?s a good idea. I personally did not heard about an initiative going in this sense, it would be a good thing to have an ontology based on GHRSST definitions.
Regards
Olivier.
-----Message d'origine-----
De?: cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu [mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] De la part de Jonathan Gregory
Envoy??: jeudi 14 f?vrier 2008 17:41
??: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
Objet?: [CF-metadata] CF-1.0 registration of new names for SST
Dear Craig
I would find sea_[sub]skin_temperature more obvious than
[sub]skin_sea_surface_temperature because it feels like "surface" and
"[sub]skin layer" are conflicting concepts.
No problem with the surface or the temperature with a depth coord. I don't
think CF can mandate the depth coord but obviously you can in your
applications of CF.
I am worried about the foundation temperature. I understand your wish to
abolish the rather vague SST bulk temperature, but "foundation" seems vague
to me in its own right. Alison's options
> measured/modelled at the base of the thermocline so that the values are
> intrinsically free of diurnal variation
and
> or is the diurnal variation statistically removed from the data
strike me as different things, which should not have the same name.
Statistically removing the variation could mean just calculating the daily
mean, which is indicated by cell_methods, not the standard name, or it could
mean filtering the data, which could be indicated in some other way to be
devised. You write
> Only in situ contact thermometry is able to measure SSTfnd ...
> SSTfnd will be similar to a night time minimum or pre-dawn value at
> depths of ~1-5 m, but some differences could exist. Note that SSTfnd
> does not imply a constant depth mixed layer, but rather a surface
> layer of variable depth depending on the balance between
> stratification and turbulent energy and is expected to change slowly
> over the course of a day.
That sounds rather ill-defined to me. Could you not have different names for
the results of different methods for evaluating it?
best wishes
Jonathan
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Cliquez sur l'url suivante
https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/ZudirdYlLneOuXrcyueCVQNGJwLdzJ8rOTCYSKtb45a3O3rK49roLfvNm6oPMvN32OFUGSoM99IThPoQ6aD81V0qkTt+JcoTJNUvM0QkojxH7M0eqCY+E919AxwQHSBZRWmk1SFbkAmc95+ya0u9jiMDSYs8zQkesnDMLue4BYNa9Bn+fSKJ15rRacCAubaIgQNZ7JN26NwuMH54Jp0O1E9xutjQbw11
si ce message est ind?sirable (pourriel).
Received on Fri Feb 15 2008 - 09:20:07 GMT
