⇐ ⇒

[CF-metadata] new standard names for CIN, LFC,LCL; update to CAPE

From: alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk <alison.pamment>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 14:28:29 +0000

Dear Seth, All,

No further comments have been received in this thread over the last two weeks. Therefore I think we should regard the discussion as closed.

The new name:
atmosphere_convective_available_potential_energy_wrt_surface (J kg-1)
is accepted for inclusion in the standard name table and will be added at the next update.

The existing name atmosphere_specific_convective_available_potential_energy will be made an alias of atmosphere_convective_available_potential_energy (J kg-1). This change will also be made at the next update.

Best wishes,
Alison

------
Alison Pamment Tel: +44 1235 778065
NCAS/British Atmospheric Data Centre Email: alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk
STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
R25, 2.22
Harwell Oxford, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf
> Of alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk
> Sent: 12 November 2013 14:44
> To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] new standard names for CIN, LFC,LCL; update to
> CAPE
>
> Dear Seth,
>
> >
> > I still have not found any datasets using the existing name
> > atmosphere_specific_convective_available_potential_energy, so I suspect
> > that it doesn't actually matter which way it is aliased.
> >
>
> Thanks for researching this. Looking back through our numbered versions of
> the standard name table I see that the original name has been around
> since version 1 which means that it existed before the creation of the
> current CF website and pre-dates my own involvement with CF. It is
> therefore quite surprising that no one seems to have used it! Perhaps it was
> part of a list of names originating from when the CF standard was under
> development.
>
> >
> > I stated the argument for aliasing it to (7) rather than (8) in the
> > previous argument, but I don't feel strongly about it, and would be
> > happy with either. If we haven't had any discussion from the list in,
> > say, two weeks, could we consider it resolved?
>
> Just to remind everyone, you are suggesting that we make
> atmosphere_specific_convective_available_potential_energy an alias of
> atmosphere_convective_available_potential_energy (J kg-1). This is defined
> as:
> 'Convective(ly) available potential energy (often abbreviated CAPE) is a
> stability measure calculated by integrating the positive temperature
> difference between the surrounding atmosphere and a parcel of air lifted
> adiabatically from a given starting height to its equilibrium level. A
> coordinate variable of original_air_pressure_of_lifted_parcel should be
> specified to indicate the starting height of the lifted parcel. CAPE exists
> under conditions of potential instability, and measures the potential energy
> per unit mass that would be released by the unstable parcel if it were able
> to convect upwards to equilibrium.'
>
> The alternative would be to make the existing name an alias of
> atmosphere_convective_available_potential_energy_wrt_surface (J kg-1)
> and defined as:
> 'Convective(ly) available potential energy (often abbreviated CAPE) is a
> stability measure calculated by integrating the positive temperature
> difference between the surrounding atmosphere and a parcel of air lifted
> adiabatically from the surface to its equilibrium level. CAPE exists under
> conditions of potential instability, and measures the potential energy per
> unit mass that would be released by the unstable parcel if it were able to
> convect upwards to equilibrium.'
>
> I agree that of the two new proposals, the first does sound more generic
> and therefore closer to the existing name. Indeed there would be nothing
> to stop someone from providing a value for
> original_air_pressure_of_lifted_parcel that was actually the surface air
> pressure so atmosphere_convective_available_potential_energy could be
> used to describe any CAPE variable.
>
> I agree with your suggestion of allowing two weeks for comments. If no
> further comments are received by that time then, yes, the issue is resolved.
>
> Best wishes,
> Alison
>
> ------
> Alison Pamment Tel: +44 1235 778065
> NCAS/British Atmospheric Data Centre Email: alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk
> STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> R25, 2.22
> Harwell Oxford, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
>
> --
> Scanned by iCritical.
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
-- 
Scanned by iCritical.
Received on Mon Nov 25 2013 - 07:28:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Sep 13 2022 - 23:02:41 BST

⇐ ⇒