Dear Olivier,
Thank you for your thoughts.
On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 15:43 +0200, olivier lauret wrote:
> Dear Ian,
>
> 48 new standard names is a good score!
Thanks to the good Professor Gregory, who advised me to just go for it!
> A few comments I have in my mind:
> *(T.2), (T.3), (T.5) about 'PME', 'SSH' and 'SSS'
> Maybe we are facing some particular points of CF: until when may we have to be intelligible in the standard_name attribute? [a question I often ask to myself, I guess the answer is "as possible as it is"..]
I don't know. Personally I prefer PME and SSS etc, but I agree that for
non-specialists jargon like this can be baffling and excluding. Perhaps
in an era of mouse-controlled cutting and pasting there's nothing wrong
with huge standard names involving "_precipitation_minus_evaporation_"
etc. I'm happy to follow the consensus - if there is one.
> For example by 'SSH' you perhaps mean 'sea surface height', and there are 3 kinds of different sea surface heights in the CF standard name table. What kind of SSH would it match? Do you think it changes the meaning of (T3) not to mention 'affecting_SSH'? I'm asking this because I am not sure it is..But I way be wrong, please tell me.
I didn't know about 3 types of SSH - I'll think about what I mean
precisely and get back to you when I return from vacation in the week
beginning Jul 7th.
> *(T.6)
> Why not 'surface_downward_salt_flux'?
Because I didn't think of it! Your name is briefer and therefore better
- thanks.
> *(T13)
> Good to see it, we have some needs here too with thermocline variables.
Good.
> *(T.15)
> If we refer to what is available in atmosphere ('atmosphere_energy_content' etc.) I think your proposal is OK
OK.
> *(U3)
> I am interested in the idea of introducing such 'derivative' terms, good
OK.
> *(U2,V2,W4)
> You are talking about velocity due to eddies; is it the same situation than when velocity components are computed from geostrophic balance, with pressure gradient equal to Coriolis forces? (Because in that case there are standard names for geostrophic velocities)
>
I don't understand. In this context, eddies are residual velocities
after some average velocity has been removed. (This average need not be
the geostrophic velocity - but I'm not sure that's what you meant?)
There's an existing CF standard name of
"northward_heat_flux_due_to_eddy_advection" which is the sort of thing I
meant. Perhaps I should have called it
"x_sea_water_velocity_due_to_eddy_advection" rather than
"..._due_to_eddies"?
Thanks again. I'll get back to you about SSH when I return from annual
leave.
Regards,
Ian.
--
Ian Culverwell B-2-81 Ocean and Sea Ice Modelling
Met Office FitzRoy Road Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)1392 884017 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885861
E-mail: ian.culverwell at metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk
Met Office climate change predictions can now be viewed on Google Earth
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/google/
Received on Thu Jun 26 2008 - 10:04:10 BST
