All:
Are we considering the following standard name final for the effective cloud height parameter we had been discussing? I have not heard any dissent in recent weeks and I need to get this integrated into my files ASAP.
Kris
________________________________________
From: Bedka, Kristopher M. (LARC-E302)[SCIENCE SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS, INC]
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 12:29 PM
To: CF Metadata Mail List
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] new standard name requests
Charlie:
I am supportive of:
height_at_effective_cloud_top_defined_by_infrared_radiation
Kris
=========================================================
Kristopher Bedka
Senior Research Scientist
Science Systems & Applications, Inc. _at_ NASA Langley Research Center
Climate Science Branch
1 Enterprise Parkway, Suite 200
Hampton, VA 23666
Primary Office Phone: (757) 864-5798
Secondary Office Phone: (757) 951-1920
Fax: (757) 951-1902
kristopher.m.bedka at nasa.gov
=========================================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Charlie Zender <zender at uci.edu>
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: Thursday, February 13, 2014 12:23 PM
To: CF Metadata Mail List <cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] new standard name requests
>> I think that the name should encode the method if the result is
>> sensitive to the method.
> Here there be dragons. Can it be said that this is not a different
> measurement of the same thing, but a measurement of a different
> property?
Yes. Kris says it is not adjusted to be a "true" cloud-top height
estimate so it should not be labeled to appear as such.
> If you go this route, a perhaps clearer option for the name is
> suggested by an existing pattern:
> height_at_cloud_top_defined_by_infrared_radiation
Although I like this better than what I proposed, it still needs work.
> This has the added benefit that it puts the emphasis on what is
> being measured, rather than the act of measuring ('retrieval').
Agreed
Without knowing more about their algorithm, it sounds like what LARC
retrieves and wishes to archive, is (approximately) the geometric
height above the surface that is one optical depth (at 11 um) from the
cloud top (as defined by visible/lidar techniques). This could be
called the "effective height" since a preponderance of the captured
photons will have the blackbody temperature signature of the
atmosphere at this height. So, I would splice-in "effective"
height_at_effective_cloud_top_defined_by_infrared_radiation
although I could live with
height_at_cloud_top_defined_by_infrared_radiation
I think practioners in the field would better understand
the meaning of the former than the latter.
c
--
Charlie Zender, Earth System Sci. & Computer Sci.
University of California, Irvine 949-891-2429 )'(
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Received on Wed Mar 05 2014 - 21:45:19 GMT
