Dear Adam,
Thanks for getting back to me. For some reason it seems that my posting
dated 10 February 2009 was not copied to the CF mailing list as it
should have been, so for completeness I have included it again at the
end of this message.
It seems that we have reached agreement on all your proposed names.
Please see below for my comments on the names that were still under
discussion. The standard name table is due to be updated on 10 March
and your names will be added on that day.
Best wishes,
Alison
>
> Dear Alison,
>
> Thank you for your response. Here are my replies to your queries:-
>
> >Please note that there are currently no eastward salt or heat
> transport
> >names in the table (we only have northward names at the moment). If
> you
> >require eastward names they would need to be sent to the mailing list
> as
> >new proposals.
>
> I do not require eastward salt or heat transports at the moment. The
> _x_ and _y_
> versions are correct for my model grid.
>
>
> >The names ocean_mass_x_transport (kg s-1) and ocean_mass_y_transport
> (kg
> >s-1) have just been accepted for the CMIP5 project. To be
consistent,
> I
> >suggest that we modify your proposals as follows:
> >ocean_mass_x_transport_due_to_advection; kg s-1
> >ocean_mass_y_transport_due_to_advection; kg s-1
> >ocean_mass_x_transport_due_to_advection_and_bolus_advection; kg s-1
> >ocean_mass_y_transport_due_to_advection_and_bolus_advection; kg s-1
> >Do you agree?
>
> I am happy with these modifications and agree that consistency is a
> good idea.
OK, thanks. These names are accepted.
>
>
> >>
> >> "ocean_montgomery_potential" ; (m2 s-2)
> >> (the ocean Montgomery potential)
> >>
> >The name sounds reasonable but I must admit to being unfamiliar with
> the
> >quantity. Please could you supply a short explanation of "Montgomery
> >potential" or supply a reference?
>
> I believe the correct reference for this would be:-
>
> Montgomery, R. B., 1937: A suggested method for representing gradient
> flow in isentropic surfaces. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 18,
> 210-212.
>
> A concise definition is:-
>
> Mongomery potential is defined as M = ap + gz, where a = specific
> volume,
> p = pressure, g = gravity, and z=depth. It represents an exact
> streamfunction
> on specific volume anomaly surfaces.
>
> (http://stommel.tamu.edu/~baum/paleo/ocean/node25.html)
>
Thank you for the reference and definition. This name is accepted.
>
> >>
> >> "water_flux_into_sea_water_from_rivers_and_surface_water_flux" ;
(kg
> >m-
> >> 2 s-1)
> >> (P-E+runoff, does not include water flux to/from sea_ice )
> >
> >I note that you have had some discussion of this name with Roy. The
> >name water_flux_into_sea_water_from_rivers already exists in the
> >standard name table and we also have surface_downward_water_flux and
> >surface_upward_water_flux. The only difference between the latter
two
> >is the sign convention ('downward' means a vector component which is
> >positive when directed downwards; 'upward' means a vector component
> >which is positive when directed upwards). I suggest that we modify
> the
> >name to be:
> >water_flux_into_sea_water_from_rivers_and_surface_downward_water_flux
> >to make the relationship to existing names as clear as possible. Is
> >this OK?
>
> I am happy with this.
OK, thank you.
water_flux_into_sea_water_from_rivers_and_surface_downward_water_flux is
accepted.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pamment, JA (Alison)
> Sent: 10 February 2009 12:04
> To: 'Blaker A.T.'
> Cc: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: RE: [CF-metadata] Some new standard names for ocean model
> fields
>
> Dear Adam,
>
> Thank you for your standard name proposals. Please see below for my
> comments on the individual names.
>
> >
> > I would like to propose some new standard names for ocean fields:-
> >
> >
> > "barotropic_sea_water_x_velocity" ; (m s-1)
> > "barotropic_sea_water_y_velocity" ; (m s-1)
> > (same quantities as barotropic_eastward_sea_water_velocity and
> > barotropic_northward_sea_water_velocity, but for use on a non-
> standard
> > grid)
> >
> These names are fine and I am happy to accept them for inclusion in
the
> table.
>
> > "ocean_heat_x_transport" ; (w)
> > "ocean_heat_y_transport" ; (w)
> Stephen Griffies has also recently proposed these names for the CMIP5
> project. They have been accepted and will appear in the next update
of
> the standard name table.
>
> > "ocean_salt_x_transport" ; (1e-3 kg s-1)
> > "ocean_salt_y_transport" ; (1e-3 kg s-1)
> > (again, same as the existing northward/eastward names, but for non-
> > standard grid)
> >
> These are consistent with existing and accepted salt and heat
transport
> names. These new names are accepted.
>
> Please note that there are currently no eastward salt or heat
transport
> names in the table (we only have northward names at the moment). If
> you require eastward names they would need to be sent to the mailing
> list as new proposals.
>
> >
> > "mass_x_transport_of_sea_water_due_to_advection" ; (kg s-1)
> > "mass_y_transport_of_sea_water_due_to_advection" ; (kg s-1)
> > "mass_x_transport_of_sea_water_due_to_advection_and_bolus_advection"
> ;
> > (kg s-1)
> > "mass_y_transport_of_sea_water_due_to_advection_and_bolus_advection"
> ;
> > (kg s-1)
> > (mass transports on a non-standard grid)
>
> The names ocean_mass_x_transport (kg s-1) and ocean_mass_y_transport
> (kg s-1) have just been accepted for the CMIP5 project. To be
> consistent, I suggest that we modify your proposals as follows:
> ocean_mass_x_transport_due_to_advection; kg s-1
> ocean_mass_y_transport_due_to_advection; kg s-1
> ocean_mass_x_transport_due_to_advection_and_bolus_advection; kg s-1
> ocean_mass_y_transport_due_to_advection_and_bolus_advection; kg s-1
> Do you agree?
>
> >
> > "tendency_of_sea_water_temperature" ; (K s-1)
> > "tendency_of_sea_water_salinity" ; (1e-3 s-1)
> > (the total tendencies of t and s)
> >
> These names are fine. They are accepted.
>
> >
> > "ocean_montgomery_potential" ; (m2 s-2)
> > (the ocean Montgomery potential)
> >
> The name sounds reasonable but I must admit to being unfamiliar with
> the quantity. Please could you supply a short explanation of
> "Montgomery potential" or supply a reference?
>
> >
> > "water_flux_into_sea_water_from_rivers_and_surface_water_flux" ; (kg
> m-
> > 2 s-1)
> > (P-E+runoff, does not include water flux to/from sea_ice )
>
> I note that you have had some discussion of this name with Roy. The
> name water_flux_into_sea_water_from_rivers already exists in the
> standard name table and we also have surface_downward_water_flux and
> surface_upward_water_flux. The only difference between the latter two
> is the sign convention ('downward' means a vector component which is
> positive when directed downwards; 'upward' means a vector component
> which is positive when directed upwards). I suggest that we modify
the
> name to be:
> water_flux_into_sea_water_from_rivers_and_surface_downward_water_flux
> to make the relationship to existing names as clear as possible. Is
> this OK?
>
> >
> >
> > Adam Blaker
> >
> > Climate Modeller
> > National Oceanography Centre, Southampton
> >
>
> ------
> Alison Pamment Tel: +44 1235 778065
> NCAS/British Atmospheric Data Centre Fax: +44 1235 446314
> Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Email:
> alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk
> Chilton, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
------
Alison Pamment Tel: +44 1235 778065
NCAS/British Atmospheric Data Centre Fax: +44 1235 446314
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Email:alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk
Chilton, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
--
Scanned by iCritical.
Received on Mon Feb 16 2009 - 18:23:32 GMT
