Dear Alison,
thank you for doing this.
> Dear Heinke,
>
> Please see below for a summary of the status of all the names you
> proposed for ECHAM5/CLM/ERA.
>
>
>> 'toa_outgoing_downward_shortwave_flux'
>>
>> 'surface_upwelling_downward_shortwave_flux_in_air'
>>
>> 'surface_upwelling_downward_longwave_flux_in_air'
>>
>
> All these quantities already exist in the standard name table without
> the _downward_. Normally, 'outgoing' and 'upwelling' would indicate
> that the flux is positive upwards, so I assume that by introducing the
> word 'downward' you wish to have the opposite sign convention - is that
> correct?
Yes this is correct the ECHAM models need 'downward' for this quantities.
(I think it is a heritage of the ECMWF model cycle 31.)
This is correct for the original output of ECHAM5 which is part of our
database CERA.
But for the IPCC Data Distribution Centre AR4 the sign was changed.
It is good that we distinguish between 'downward' and 'upward' to
clarify this. <
http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&p=thMx..&search=clarify>
> We have just introduced a new standard name
> minus_one_times_water_flux_into_sea_water_from_rivers to cope with the
> situation where a change of sign was needed. We could do the same for
> your names so that they would become:
>
> minus_one_times_toa_outgoing_shortwave_flux
> minus_one_times_surface_upwelling_shortwave_flux_in_air
> minus_one_times_surface_upwelling_longwave_flux_in_air
>
> Is this OK?
>
Sorry, but I don't agree. It is hard work to explain the difference
between upwelling
and upward. If you introduce minus_one_times this is a break out of the
original concept.
>
> So the actual standard names proposals are:
> downward_heat_flux_in_ice; W m-2
> ice_thickness; m
>
>
>
I like Jonathan's proposal:
downward_heat_flux_in_floating_ice where lake_ice_or_sea_ice
and
floating_ice_thickness where lake_ice_or_sea_ice
What do you think?
Best wishes
Heinke
Received on Thu Oct 23 2008 - 02:38:42 BST
