Hi Heiko, Eizi,
You make a good point that any standard, such as WMO or ISCCP, may change. However that is also true for CF, and furthermore I think it is likely that other people will want other cloud description standards in the future, including any changes to your WMO-synop standard.
My suggestion for dealing with this is to use the name of the cloud standard in the CF std_name, and then put details and a version number in the std_name description. This will make it precise, and easily extendable in the future.
BTW, I didn't immediately recognize what you meant by 'synop', although it became more obvious after a quick google search. It initially sounded to me like it was a non-specific reference to synoptic scales. If we do decide to use it as part of the std_name, would it be appropriate to call it 'wmosynop' or 'wmo_synop'?
Best wishes,
Philip
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Philip Cameron-Smith, pjc at llnl.gov, Lawrence Livermore National Lab.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TOYODA Eizi [mailto:toyoda at gfd-dennou.org]
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 1:12 AM
> To: Heiko Klein
> Cc: Cameron-smith, Philip; Jonathan Gregory; cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard_name for cloud-cover by phenomenon
>
> 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 - 14:59:37 BST
