Hi Heiko,
Sorry about perturbing.
You're right. Currently nobody has requested other "low cloud fraction
area" such as ISCCP's.
And I should have add one thing: "low cloud" in ISCCP is simply defined
using height, so it is possible to describe it using vertical axis. Our
synop case is different.
Best Regards,
Eizi
----- Original Message -----
From: "Heiko Klein" <Heiko.Klein at met.no>
To: "TOYODA Eizi" <toyoda at gfd-dennou.org>
Cc: "Cameron-smith, Philip" <cameronsmith1 at llnl.gov>; "Jonathan Gregory"
<j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>; <cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 4:01 PM
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard_name for cloud-cover by phenomenon
> Hi,
>
> the idea of putting a source of the definition to the name makes sense if
> you want to include several definitions. This is the case for
> cloud_area_fraction and isccp_cloud_area_fraction. So, if we had already
> one definition of high_clouds, I would go for the SYNOP_high_clouds. But
> we currently don't have several definitions, and CF should make it's own
> one. And we currently agree very well on which definition to use.
>
> I don't like the idea of putting the responsibility for the definition
> into others hands. If the SYNOP definition changes, the CF-definition
> should not. CF-definitions should be self-describing and not rely on other
> parties.
>
> Even if we used a prefix, we would still need the 'type' as discussed in
> the beginning of this thread, i.e. because high is neither altitude nor
> height, but a implicit name. So I would currently still prefer
>
> high_type_cloud_area_fraction
> middle_type_cloud_area_fraction
> low_type_cloud_area_fraction
>
> Best regards,
>
> Heiko
>
>
> On 2012-05-13 20:12, TOYODA Eizi wrote:
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CF-metadata mailing list
>> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
> --
> Dr. Heiko Klein Tel. + 47 22 96 32 58
> Development Section / IT Department Fax. + 47 22 69 63 55
> Norwegian Meteorological Institute http://www.met.no
> P.O. Box 43 Blindern 0313 Oslo NORWAY
Received on Mon May 14 2012 - 02:12:10 BST
