Sea_surface_salinity is missing from your list; I don't have time
to edit the doc, sorry. This should really have been a trac ticket -
that would have eliminated the need for the word document.
Cheers - Nan
On 12/7/11 7:34 PM, Durack, Paul J. wrote:
> Thanks for all this work Alison..
>
> For clarity and to ensure that it's easier to capture and finalise these
> edits I am attaching a word doc with the suggested new standard names,
> their definitions etc.. I am appending these below as a reminder for those
> who don't want to download and read the attached *.doc:
>
> sea_water_practical_salinity
> sea_water_cox_salinity
> sea_water_knudsen_salinity
> sea_water_reference_salinity
> sea_water_absolute_salinity
> sea_water_preformed_salinity
> sea_water_conservative_temperature
> sea_water_specific_potential_enthalpy
> change_over_time_in_sea_water_practical_salinity
> change_over_time_in_sea_water_absolute_salinity
> change_over_time_in_sea_water_preformed_salinity
> change_over_time_in_sea_water_conservative_temperature
> change_over_time_in_sea_water_specific_potential_enthalpy
>
> And update to the following names is also proposed:
>
>
> sea_water_salinity
> sea_water_temperature
>
>
> If you have any edits to these, please edit the *.doc file and resubmit to
> the mailing list.
>
> Apologies for resorting to this format, however it's been difficult to
> capture all the comments that have been made, particularly since there is
> quite a lot of text buried in the definitions for these new names..
>
> Once again, thanks to Alison for your efforts it getting this close to the
> line..
>
> Cheers,
>
> P
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk"<alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk>
> Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 06:18:22 -0800
> To: "cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu"<cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>, "Durack, Paul
> J."<durack1 at llnl.gov>
> Cc: "Trevor.Mcdougall at csiro.au"<Trevor.Mcdougall at csiro.au>,
> "sabine.feistel at io-warnemuende.de"<sabine.feistel at io-warnemuende.de>,
> "rich at eos.ubc.ca"<rich at eos.ubc.ca>, "bak at noc.soton.ac.uk"
> <bak at noc.soton.ac.uk>, "Paul.Barker at csiro.au"<Paul.Barker at csiro.au>,
> "Paul.Durack at csiro.au"<Paul.Durack at csiro.au>,
> "susanne.feistel at io-warnemuende.de"<susanne.feistel at io-warnemuende.de>,
> "rainer.feistel at io-warnemuende.de"<rainer.feistel at io-warnemuende.de>,
> "steffen.bock at io-warnemuende.de"<steffen.bock at io-warnemuende.de>,
> "guenther.nausch at io-warnemuende.de"<guenther.nausch at io-warnemuende.de>,
> "j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk"<j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>,
> "Stephen.Griffies at noaa.gov"<Stephen.Griffies at noaa.gov>
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] new TEOS-10 standard names
>
>> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
--
*******************************************************
* Nan Galbraith (508) 289-2444 *
* Upper Ocean Processes Group Mail Stop 29 *
* Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution *
* Woods Hole, MA 02543 *
*******************************************************
Received on Fri Dec 09 2011 - 09:55:21 GMT
