Dear Philip,
My take is that the land_surface_skin_temperature and the
surface_temperature are likely very close in value, since the
surface_temperature is an infinitesimally thin layer at the bottom level
of the atmosphere which interfaces with the land skin (soil) below -
hence, the definition stating that they can be taken to be equivalent.
The land_surface_skin_temperature proposal is motivated by a new
observational data product which is the radiating temperature of a very
thin, top layer of the land surface. This quantity does not currently
exist in the CF standard name set, but has an analogue in
sea_surface_skin_temperature. The surface_temperature name was added to
CF because it is a standard model variable, I believe. Someone please
correct me if I am wrong, but the radiating temperature of the Earth in
models is often simply referrred to as the "surface temperature," so I
wanted to draw a connection between the model quantity and the
observable land_surface_skin_temperature in the definition such that
they are effectively the same thing. This seems to be one of those
situations where there are two quantities, one created for an observed
quantity and the other for a model quantity, but the two quantities
likely have very similar values. I guess the question is whether or not
this is permissible within CF.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Wrotny
On 10/3/2013 1:30 PM, Cameron-smith, Philip wrote:
> Hi Jonathan (Wrotny), Jonathan (Gregory), et al.,
>
> I am a little surprised.
>
> It is explicitly stated in the proposed description that land_surface_skin_temperature "can be taken to be equivalent to" surface_temperature over land areas.
>
> In the description for surface_temperature, it indicates that it can apply to just land using cell_methods. Indeed, in the CF convention, example 7.6 explicitly states this:
>
> Example 7.6. Mean surface temperature over land and sensible heat flux averaged separately over land and sea.
> float surface_temperature(lat,lon);
> surface_temperature:cell_methods="area: mean where land";
>
> I also note that surface_temperature is already an alias for surface_temperature_where_land (which I think is deprecated)
>
> Why is a new std_name needed? What am I missing?
>
> It is true that there is a variable called sea_surface_skin_temperature, but it appears that this was introduced for different reasons. Specifically, it looks like sea_surface_temperature was created to refer to the water _near_ the surface to distinguish it from the 'skin'. sea_surface_skin_temperature then differs from surface_temperature because it refers to the interface under sea-ice rather than above sea-ice.
>
> Best wishes, as always :-),
>
> 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: Thursday, October 03, 2013 9:35 AM
>> To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Surface temperatures
>>
>> Dear Jonathan
>>
>> The new proposal looks fine to me. Thanks. I see that you don't have to
>> define the thickness of the layer; instead, you are defining it implicitly
>> through the method of diagnosis. Others may have views, of course.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> ----- Forwarded message from Jonathan Wrotny <jwrotny at aer.com> -----
>>
>>> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:26:27 -0400
>>> From: Jonathan Wrotny <jwrotny at aer.com>
>>> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801
>>> Thunderbird/17.0.8
>>> To: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>, "cf-
>> metadata at cgd.ucar.edu"
>>> <cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
>>> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Surface temperatures
>>>
>>> Dear Jonathan Gregory,
>>>
>>> I am getting back to this reply after a long time - sorry, I was
>>> pulled in a few different directions lately. Hopefully, it is
>>> possible to bring back to life a submission that I had made for the
>>> land_surface_skin_temperature.
>>>
>>> Revisiting my previous proposal and a few e-mails by Karl Taylor and
>>> Evan Manning, I have made some modifications to the definition of this
>>> standard name so that I can incorporate some suggestions by Karl and
>>> Evan. Here is my current proposal:
>>>
>>> Standard Name:land_surface_skin_temperature
>>>
>>> Definition:The land surface skin temperature is the temperature of a
>>> land point or the land portion of a region as inferred from infrared
>>> radiation emitted directly towards space through the atmosphere. Not
>>> all of the emitted surface radiation originates at the soil.Some may
>>> come from various terrestrial features (e.g., vegetation, rivers,
>>> lakes, ice, snow cover, man-made objects).Thus, the land surface skin
>>> temperature is the aggregate temperature of an effective layer which
>>> includes the soil and terrestrial features at the surface (if they
>>> occur).In models, the radiating temperature of the surface is usually
>>> the "surface_temperature", which then can be taken to be equivalent to
>>> land_surface_skin_temperature or sea_surface_skin temperature,
>>> depending on the underlying medium.
>>>
>>> Canonical Units:K
>>>
>>> Thanks for still considering this proposal. Sincerely,
>>>
>>> Jonathan Wrotny
>>>
>>> On 8/1/2013 12:56 PM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
>>>> Dear all
>>>>
>>>> I agree with Karl than in CF standard names "land" means "non-sea",
>>>> whereas sea-ice is part of sea. Hence I would support adding
>>>> land_surface_skin_ temperature, for use by applications which classify
>> locations as land or sea.
>>>> However I also agree with Evan that one can approach this more
>>>> generally, and therefore I would also support the addition of
>>>> surface_skin_temperature, with which an area-type could be specified,
>>>> if anyone wants to follow that approach (we only add names when they
>> are needed).
>>>> The quotations that Evan made show that we need to change the
>>>> definitions where they mention "skin". This is because in these new
>>>> names "skin" is being given a more precise and practical meaning,
>>>> motivated by observational methods, whereas the surface_temperature
>>>> names were introduced for models, in which the skin can be a notional
>> and infinitesimally thin layer.
>>>> Best wishes
>>>>
>>>> Jonathan
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> CF-metadata mailing list
>>>> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>>>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>> ----- End forwarded message -----
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
Received on Thu Oct 03 2013 - 13:39:58 BST
