Dear Jonathan,
> These look perfect to me:
> > ultraviolet_index
> > ultraviolet_index_assuming_clear_sky
>
> For this one
>
> > ultraviolet_index_assuming_overcast
>
> I'd suggst overcast_sky
I agree, that is a more precise term.
> I think this one
>
> > ultraviolet_index_assuming_half_cloud_cover
>
> would be better specified as ultraviolet_index with a scalar coordinate
> variable of cloud_area_fraction, especially if there is likely to be a need
> for other fractions than 0.5. Can you envisage such a need?
Yes, in principle. It is no secret that forecasted cloudiness has some issues
and we have discussed moving towards e.g. an indication of 0, 25, 50, 75 and
100% cloudiness. But it all do depend on the validation of forecasted
cloudiness in this context. I do also think it is a more precise
specification, especially concerning how we do use it today.
All the best
?ystein
--
Dr. Oystein Godoy
Norwegian Meteorological Institute
P.O.BOX 43, Blindern, N-0313 OSLO, Norway
Ph: (+47) 2296 3000 (switchb) 2296 3334 (direct line)
Fax:(+47) 2296 3050 Institute home page: http://met.no/
Received on Tue Nov 19 2013 - 12:52:34 GMT
