Dear all,
In CMIP5 we requested "snowfall_flux" by which we meant the mass per
unit time of precipitation of all forms of water in the solid phase.
Thus, "snowfall" could be added to liquid-water precipitation to give
total precipitation (standard name.
I'm wondering if using "snowfall_flux" to represent generically all
forms of falling ice particles is misleading (or will become misleading
when it becomes common for models to distinguish between different forms
of ice). I note there is a standard name "stratiform_graupel_flux",
which is a particular form of ice.
Before too much new data gets written, does anyone think we should add
"solid_phase_precipitation_flux" (replacing snowfall_flux to represent
all forms of precipitating ice particles)? We should certainly clarify
what "snowfall" means.
I note that there is a standard name "rainfall_rate" and this also needs
clarification. Does it include "drizzle" and if not, should we add a
standard_name "liquid_water_precipitation_flux"?
Best regards,
Karl
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20130715/02748b30/attachment.html>
Received on Mon Jul 15 2013 - 14:36:16 BST
