Dear Jonathan and Jim
In my previous email, I was trying to explain why an interface temperature
is a physical meaningful concept, which Jonathan asked about. This is actually
an applicable concept in models, as I said, and it is the idea which I (at
least) had in mind when the name was put in the standard name table. Like CF
in general, the standard name table was originally created for the purpose of
model metadata, and was later to extended to observations. This quantity is an
idealisation, not an observable quantity.
The heat capacity of a layer 12 micrometers thick is so small that I suppose
there is practically no difference between the skin temperature and the
interface temperature, on the timescales you're interested in. Is that correct,
do you think? If so, it seems to me that it would be fine to use the existing
name of surface_temperature for this quantity. You propose the new name on the
analogy of the sea_surface_skin_temperature. The same argument would apply to
that as well. I can't remember the reason why it was thought necessary to make
a distinction between surface_temperature and sea_surface_skin_temperature,
though I do recall quite a lot of discussion about it.
It is also fine to introduce land_surface_skin_temperature as well, I would
say. The data-writer has a choice. They could use surface_temperature if that
is accurate enough, but if they wish to be more precise about what material
layer it applies to, the skin temperature names could be used.
Best wishes
Jonathan
13/06/17 13:20:03 house
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 02:45:28PM -0400, Jonathan Wrotny wrote:
> Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 14:45:28 -0400
> From: Jonathan Wrotny <jwrotny at aer.com>
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509
> Thunderbird/17.0.6
> To: Jim Biard <jim.biard at noaa.gov>
> CC: "cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu List" <cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] new standard name: land_surface_skin_temperature
>
> Dear Jim,
>
> Thanks for your comments. They all make sense to me and I'm on
> board with your suggested definition. I'll just wait for others to
> comment, if needed, then we can converge on a final definition.
> Sincerely,
>
> Jonathan
>
> On 6/14/2013 2:11 PM, Jim Biard wrote:
> >Jonathan,
> >
> >I still don't believe that the surface temperature concept that
> >Jonathan Gregory has ever been what people were intending when
> >they make the surface_temperature standard name, but I'll abide by
> >whatever folks decide.
> >
> >On a different front, I don't think the definition of the standard
> >name should include statements about technology used (measured by
> >an infrared radiometer?). The definition should speak only to the
> >measured quantity, without reference to the way in which you
> >happen to be measuring it. Likewise, there is no need for the
> >statement regarding variability of the quantity. Also, the
> >surface in this name is not the lower boundary of the atmosphere.
> >It is the upper boundary of the land. An non-volatile object in a
> >hard vacuum has a surface skin temperature.
> >
> >Given all that, I'd suggest this for your definition:
> >
> >Standard Name: land_surface_skin_temperature
> >
> >Definition: The land surface skin temperature is the aggregate
> >temperature of the "skin" of the land surface, which extends
> >vertically approximately 12 micrometers below the land surface.
> >
> >If people really think it needs to be spelled out even further,
> >add the sentence "The land surface is the upper boundary of the
> >land."
> >
> >Grace and peace,
> >
> >Jim
> >
> >Jim Biard
> >Research Scholar
> >Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites <http://www.cicsnc.org/>
> >Remote Sensing and Applications Division
> >National Climatic Data Center <http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/>
> >151 Patton Ave, Asheville, NC 28801-5001
> >
> >jim.biard at noaa.gov <mailto:jim.biard at noaa.gov>
> >828-271-4900
> >
> >
> >
> >Follow us onFacebook <https://www.facebook.com/cicsnc>!
> >
> >On Jun 14, 2013, at 1:54 PM, Jonathan Wrotny <jwrotny at aer.com
> ><mailto:jwrotny at aer.com>> wrote:
> >
> >>Dear Jonathan Gregory,
> >>
> >>Thanks for your reply...this certainly helps to clear things up
> >>for me. I now better understand the meaning of the
> >>"surface_temperature" standard name with the temperature defined
> >>by heat fluxes at an interface, and not based on an actual
> >>medium.
> >>
> >>This also makes it obvious to me that my proposed standard name
> >>"land_surface_skin_temperature" does not currently exist within
> >>CF and could serve as an analogue to
> >>"sea_surface_skin_temperature." To summarize, here is my
> >>current proposal:
> >>
> >>Standard Name: land_surface_skin_temperature
> >>
> >>Definition:The surface called "surface" means the lower boundary
> >>of the atmosphere. The land surface skin temperature is the
> >>temperature measured by an infrared radiometer, but measurements
> >>from microwave radiometers operating at GHz wavelengths also
> >>exist. It represents the aggregate temperature of the skin
> >>surface where ?skin? means the surface medium viewed by a sensor
> >>to a vertical depth of approximately 12 micrometers.
> >>
> >>Measurements of this quantity are subject to a large potential
> >>diurnal cycle which is primarily due to the balance between
> >>heating during the day by solar radiation and continual cooling
> >>from terrestrial (long-wave) radiation emitted by the skin
> >>surface.
> >>
> >>Canonical Units:K
> >>
> >>
> >>Sincerely,
> >>
> >>Jonathan Wrotny
> >>
> >>On 6/14/2013 1:22 PM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> >>>Dear Jonathan
> >>>
> >>>I defer to Roy about the various sea water temperature names.
> >>>
> >>>It is physically meaningful to have a temperature which doesn't relate to any
> >>>material layer. If there is no matter associated with it, it must have zero
> >>>heat capacity, so the temperature is determined by requiring an exact balance
> >>>of heat fluxes. For this to be possible, the heat fluxes concerned must depend
> >>>on the temperature, which of course they generally do. Obviously this is an
> >>>idealisation, but a surface interface temperature of this kind really can
> >>>exist in a model, although it's not an observational quantity. A model can
> >>>obtain such a temperature by solving simultaneously for the heat fluxes that
> >>>are balanced at the interface.
> >>>
> >>>Best wishes
> >>>
> >>>Jonathan G
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>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 <mailto: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 Mon Jun 17 2013 - 06:41:53 BST
