Dear All,
Thank you to everyone who has submitted comments about these names. Rather than send lots of separate replies I am using this message to respond to everyone in turn.
1. sea_water_temperature
John Graybeal wrote:
> > (b) sea_water_temperature
> > There is agreement to retain the standard name sea_water_temperature
> as this is useful particularly for observations. It currently has no
> explanatory text. In response to the discussion I propose to add the
> following sentence: 'Sea temperature is the in situ (bulk) temperature
> of the sea water, not the surface or skin temperature.'
>
> In the proposed definition, do you mean to say 'Sea water temperature
> is ...' ?
Yes, I agree that is much better.
Craig Donlon wrote:
> Please do not use the word bulk when referring to sst. The correct term
> is SSTdepth. This was extensively discussed previously
The word bulk crept in because I had based the text on the definition of air_temperature. The only significance of the word, I think, is to make the distinction from skin temperature and in the case of sea_water_temperature I don't think it's needed, so I will remove it.
Roy Lowry wrote:
> I have a concern with your exclusion of the surface from the term
> sea_water_temperature. What Standard Name would you use for the
> temperature data stream in a CTD profile that extends from the surface
> to depth? I'm more comfortable with the idea of keeping
> sea_water_temperature vague so it can include a mixture of surface and
> within water body measurements, but making the SST terms explicitly
> exclude temperatures within the water body.
Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> Since this is a very general term, maybe we can leave it vague (and thus sidestep
> the need to define surfaces). It is the in-situ temperature of sea water. SST is
> a species of sea_water_temperature. It is analogous to air_temperature.
Thanks to both of you for pointing this out - I hadn't intended to exclude surface/near surface values from profiles but I can see how my explanation might have been interpreted to mean that.
Following all the comments, I propose that the text for sea_water_temperature should be: ' "Sea water temperature" is the in situ temperature of the sea water. To specify the depth at which the temperature applies use a vertical coordinate variable or scalar coordinate variable. There are standard names for sea_surface_temperature, sea_surface_skin_temperature, sea_surface_subskin_temperature and sea_surface_foundation_temperature which can be used to describe data located at the specified surfaces.' Is that better?
Paul Durack has sent me a preview of some additional text regarding temperature scales used for observations over the years. I think that text could easily be appended to the above. I understand that Paul is in the process of preparing revised proposals for many of the teos-10 descriptions which he will post to the list in due course.
2. Existing salinity names
John Graybeal wrote:
> Regarding the existing salinity quantities, the straightforward
> conclusion (though not implementation) is to make parallel changes to
> those quantities, and add parallel quantities at least for
> sea_water_practical_salinity, on the assumption that the users of the
> original quantities would need the replacement and practical is a
> likely replacement (I'm guessing here).
>
> However, to a degree this violates the 'wait for demand' principal of
> CF. A solution might be to put out the question, for each original
> quantity together with each new salinity (practical, absolute,
> preformed) "Do you need this value, and if so, would you suggest a
> correction to the definition?" Those with the needs could check the
> appropriate boxes, and you could backfill any others that are needed
> later.
Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> I think these terms can remain vague too. In their vagueness, they are
> parallel to sea_water_salinity, which we are retaining, though
> deprecating for
> future obs quantities, and models where applicable. If salinity is
> generic,
> these generic quantities can also be used for specific purposes. When
> it
> becomes necessary to be specific about *which* salinity is meant by
> e.g.
> product_of_northward_sea_water_velocity_and_salinity
> then a new specific standard name can be defined. We could modify the
> definitions to say that they can be used with any definition of
> salinity
> (but specific ones could be proposed if required to make distinctions).
I think John is right that we shouldn't introduce a lot of new names where there isn't a clear need. My major concern was to make sure the descriptions of the existing names make sense in relation to the new TEOS-10 names, which means that we need to decide if they should be regarded as generic salinity quantities (I think they should), or practical salinity, or whatever. We need to be clear about these definitions regardless of whether we introduce further names corresponding to all the precisely defined salinities. I agree with Jonathan's suggestion of adding some text to emphasise the fact that the salinity is generic in the existing names. I think there is a case for adding a new sea_surface_practical_salinity name as remotely sensed observations of this quantity have been referred to during the discussion of the teos-10 proposals.
3. New teos-10 names
As I alluded to above, Paul Durack is in the process of revising the descriptions of the new names based on comments from Trevor, Rainer and others in the oceanographic community who are not subscribed to the CF mailing list. I don't want to comment any further on the new names until Paul has had time to post his proposals.
Best wishes,
Alison
------
Alison Pamment Tel: +44 1235 778065
NCAS/British Atmospheric Data Centre Email: alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk
STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
R25, 2.22
Harwell Oxford, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
--
Scanned by iCritical.
Received on Wed Dec 07 2011 - 07:18:22 GMT
