Hi Philip,
Your idea makes sense at least for me.
My bottom line is to avoid being forced to use vertical axis to identify
types of clouds.
One thing: WMO is umbrella for too many programmes. So it is a bit unclear
to specify cloud definitions in operational synoptic meteorology. So
following might be clearer.
SYNOP_high_cloud_area_fraction
SYNOP_middle_cloud_area_fraction
SYNOP_low_cloud_fraction
(Heiko, what do you think? ?)
Eizi
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cameron-smith, Philip" <cameronsmith1 at llnl.gov>
To: "Jonathan Gregory" <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>;
<cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard_name for cloud-cover by phenomenon
> Hi All,
>
> I am not wild about using 'type'. I had to read the terms several times
> before I figured out what was being meant, because I could read it
> different grammatical ways.
>
> A second problem is that it seems a particular definition will be linked
> to these terms (or did I miss something?), yet someone might reasonably
> want to use a different definition for high/middle/low clouds in the
> future.
>
> Although I generally don't like including the origin of the data in the
> std_name, I think this may be an exception. I would suggest using either
>
> ISCCP_high_cloud_area_fraction
> ISCCP_middle_cloud_area_fraction
> ISCCP_low_cloud_fraction
>
> or
>
> WMO_high_cloud_area_fraction
> WMO_middle_cloud_area_fraction
> WMO_low_cloud_fraction
>
> I note that isccp_cloud_area_fraction is already an accepted std_name, so
> the suggestions above follow naturally.
>
> This would also allow changes to the high/middle/low definitions in the
> future. This would be a problem if there is a proliferation of
> definitions, but I doubt this will be a problem.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Philip
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dr Philip Cameron-Smith, pjc at llnl.gov, Lawrence Livermore National Lab.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu
> [mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Gregory
> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 7:10 AM
> To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard_name for cloud-cover by phenomenon
>
> Dear Heiko
>
>> I just had a short side-discussion with Eizi, and we settled on
>> 'type', i.e. we propose the standard names:
>>
>> high_type_cloud_area_fraction
>> middle_type_cloud_area_fraction
>> low_type_cloud_area_fraction
>
> These look fine to me. As you said to John, I hope that "type" would
> trigger
> people to look up the definition.
>
> Best wishes and thanks
>
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Received on Sun May 13 2012 - 12:12:06 BST
