Hi Jonathan, et al.,
We do have a number of other cases where we effectively specify integrals/averages within std_names. For example, we have atmosphere_moles_of_X as a global integral. We also have atmosphere_mass_content_of_X as a column integral.
I know there are advantages and disadvantages. Personally, I believe the bar should be high to be included as a separate standard name, but there are cases such as these which pass over the bar. I am personally happy to leave these global_average_sea_level names as they are.
Best wishes,
Philip
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Philip Cameron-Smith, pjc at llnl.gov, Lawrence Livermore National Lab.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf
> Of Jonathan Gregory
> Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 4:50 AM
> To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard names for sea level change
>
> Dear all
>
> Regarding the existing standard_name global_average_sea_level_change
> and the corresponding ones for steric and thermosteric:
>
> It is anomalous to have "global" and "average" in a standard name because,
> as Philip says, we usually put these kinds of thing in cell_methods. The
> reason for having them in the standard name in these cases is that these
> global quantities are commonly referred to without being regarded as the
> global average of something. You can imagine other quantities which refer to
> the whole world; for example we might have a standard name for the age of
> the Earth.
>
> Although it's a fuzzy distinction, it's not quite like global average air
> temperature change, for example. We do not have a standard name for that,
> because people do regard it as the global average of local air temperature
> change. That is how it is computed. Global average sea level change, before
> satellite altimetry began, is estimated from sparse measurements by various
> methods.
>
> However, we could change to using more systematic names, although it
> would be a bit more obscure. global_average_sea_level_change could be
> described by a standard_name of change_in_ocean_thickness with
> cell_methods of "area: mean over sea" for the whole world.
> global_average_thermosteric_sea_level_change
> could be change_in_ocean_thickness_due_to_thermosteric_change. Should
> we make that change (with aliases)?
>
> Cheers
>
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Received on Fri Jul 06 2012 - 11:25:15 BST
