Hi Heiko,
How do you feel following names?
high_genera_cloud_area_fraction:
Cirrus, Cirrostratus, Cirrocumulus
middle_genera_cloud_area_fraction:
Altostratus, Altocumulus, Nimbostratus
low_genera_cloud_area_fraction:
Stratus, Stratocumulus, Cumulus, Cumulonimbus
Even in the article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud the meaning of "low
cloud" depends on contexts. You and I and US-NWS share the same definition
of "low cloud = St + Sc + Cu + Cb" as used in CL of SYNOP report. But these
clouds have different height, and some people use more coordinate-oriented
definition of "low cloud". WMO Intl Meteorological Vocabulary says "low
level cloud = St + Sc". I would say "low and cumuloform cloud", but some
seems to define "cumuloform = Cc + Ac + Cu + Cb".
So it's better to be creative on names to avoid ambiguity.
Eizi
----- Original Message -----
From: "Heiko Klein" <Heiko.Klein at met.no>
To: "Jonathan Gregory" <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>
Cc: "TOYODA Eizi" <toyoda at gfd-dennou.org>; <cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard_name for cloud-cover by phenomenon
> Dear Jonathan,
>
>
> On 2012-04-25 19:04, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
>> Dear Eizi and Heiko
>>
>>> I support your proposal to add "low_cloud_area_fraction",
>>> "low_cloud_area_fraction", and "high_cloud_area_fraction".
>>>
>>> (2) It's misunderstanding that whatever "cloud" located in high
>>> layer becomes high cloud.
>>
>> This sounds confusing to me, even though WMO may approve it. I would feel
>> uncomfortable about using this terminology in standard names. A user of
>> the data would very naturally assume "high cloud" means it is high, etc.
>> On the other hand, the cloud types Heiko mentioned (cumulus, altocumulus,
>> cirrus etc.) are used with consistent meanings, so these would be a
>> reliable
>> basis for CF vocabulary.
>>
>
>
> I don't like the names low/medium/high neither. I would much more like
> something like 'cirro', 'alto' and 'strato'_cloud_area_fraction, but
> unfortunately, the latin translations had been used already (and the
> translations aren't even correct, since the alto-* clouds are not the high
> clouds).
>
> Low/medium/high cloud types are well established terminology, e.g.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud . Just because they are English rather
> than Latin terms doesn't well mean that CF cannot use them?
>
> Though this has been done very often, in my opinion, just translating an
> ambiguous term like low into Latin doesn't make it less ambiguous.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Heiko
>
Received on Thu Apr 26 2012 - 03:46:21 BST
