[CF-metadata] CF-1.0 registration of new names for SST

From: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 08:37:13 +0100

Dear Alison

> The only issue remaining to be resolved is the precise wording of the
> name. There are currently two options on the table:
> sea_surface_temperature_at_diurnal_thermocline_base and
> sea_foundation_temperature.
> ... It is true that "foundation" is a new term
> to standard names, but actually so are "skin" and "subskin" so, all
> things considered, I can't see any reason to treat this name
> differently. Last, but not least, sea_foundation_temperature has the
> advantage of using a term that is well recognized in the GHRSST
> community. Jonathan, do you think this sounds reasonable?

These arguments are certainly reasonable, but I am not convinced that is the
right decision. I can see that this is a term that is in use in the GHRSST
community (there are plenty of references to it on Google) but to someone
outside that community I don't think "sea foundation temperature" would have
an obvious meaning. You might guess it means at the bottom of the thermocline
or at the bottom of the ocean, for instance. On the other hand, "skin" is a
more widely used idea. It's more obvious where the "skin" of the sea is!

I think sea_surface_temperature_at_diurnal_thermocline_base is a more obvious
term that a larger number of people would understand. One of the Google
references is to the book "Measuring the Oceans from Space" by Ian Stuart
Robinson, who defines "foundation temperature" as the temperature at the base
of any diurnal thermocline that may be present. If that's what it means to
everyone who uses the term "foundation temperature", I think it is well worth
the longer name for the sake of easier comprehension by users of data. But
if no-one agrees with me, I'll abide by the majority decision.

Best wishes

Jonathan
Received on Mon Apr 07 2008 - 01:37:13 BST