Dear Jonathan,
Thank you for your suggestions on these names, we think that they will
suit our needs very well.
There is still one issue remaining:
>> - thermodynamic_particle_phase_at_cloud_top (status_flag): "The
>> thermodynamic phase of particles at the top of the cloud" ;
>>
> What are the allowed values of this quantity?
>
These are: liquid, ice and mixed. (flag_meanings = "liquid ice mixed" ;)
>
>> Is there a better way do distuingish between
>> thermodynamic_particle_phase_at_cloud_top and
>> thermodynamic_particle_phase_at_cloud_top_infrared?
>>
> There are other instances where we have used a phrase defined_by to make
> a distinction between closely related geophysical concepts. Is this such a
> case, where "cloud top" is defined in particular ways? What are these ways?
>
The first is indeed derived from visibile radiances while the second is
derived from infrared radiances only.
Should we apply the standard name
(thermodynamic_particle_phase_at_cloud_top or something similar) and
define somehow whether it is derived from visible or infrared?
defined_by visible
defined_by infrared?
If this is the way to go, how should we apply these?
Best regards,
Maarten
Jonathan Gregory schreef:
> Dear Maarten
>
> Thank you for working towards CF compliance.
>
>
>> - instrument_zenith_angle (degree): "Instrument zenith angle is the the
>> angle between the line of sight to the instrument and the local vertical" ;
>>
> There was a recent thread on this email list about names similar to this and
> maybe this has already come up - I don't remember. Possibly it would be better
> to make it
> platform_zenith_angle
> because there are various other platform_ standard names. Would that be OK?
>
>
>> - solar_instrument_relative_azimuth_angle (degree): "The difference
>> between the solar azimuth angle and the instrument azimuth angle" ;
>>
> Personally I would find that a bit hard to understand. Also, I wonder if a
> sign convention should be specified. To address that, what would your opinion
> be of
> angle_of_rotation_from_solar_azimuth_to_platform_azimuth
> based on existing names of the form angle_of_rotation_from_A_to_B.
>
>
>> - thermodynamic_particle_phase_at_cloud_top (status_flag): "The
>> thermodynamic phase of particles at the top of the cloud" ;
>>
> What are the allowed values of this quantity?
>
>
>> Is there a better way do distuingish between
>> thermodynamic_particle_phase_at_cloud_top and
>> thermodynamic_particle_phase_at_cloud_top_infrared?
>>
> There are other instances where we have used a phrase defined_by to make
> a distinction between closely related geophysical concepts. Is this such a
> case, where "cloud top" is defined in particular ways? What are these ways?
>
>
>> - geometrical_thickness_of_liquid_water_cloud (m): "Cloud Geometrical
>> Thickness (cloud top height minus cloud base)" ;
>>
> Could we omit "geometrical"? In standard names, "thickness" means just this
> i.e. the vertical extent of a layer.
>
>
>> - effective_radius_of_cloud_condensed_water_particle_at_cloud_top (m):
>> "Particle effective radius for both liquid and ice water particles" ;
>>
> That one seems to correspond well to the pattern of some existing names.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
>
--
Maarten Plieger
KNMI, R&D Information and Observation Technology, De Bilt
(t) +31 30 2206330
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20101125/5c65ee31/attachment-0001.html>
Received on Thu Nov 25 2010 - 09:38:20 GMT
