Dear all
I think we should omit _at_1au because we can put it in the definition as a
default and that will make the standard name more general, as Jim notes. We
have other quantities defined that way, with a reference parameter that has
a default which could be overridden by specifying a value. In the names
originally proposed by Odele et al., the distance from the sun was specified
in the definition, not in the standard_name.
So far no-one has expressed a view on whether we should change flux to
flux_density in existing names. If we do that, then I think flux_density will
be better than irradiance, because of consistency, if there is no essential
distinction. On the other hand, if we stick with flux in all other names (for
m-2 quantities) then we could use irradiance in these new names, because the
proposers and others in their community would find a standard_name using flux
for W m-2 to be misleading. Let's see what other views are contributed about
"flux" versus "flux density".
Best wishes
Jonathan
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 03:54:07PM +0000, Odele Coddington wrote:
>
> Okay, thanks Jim. In this case, I would still support the standard names I suggested earlier, but including the _at_1au suffix.
> Best regards,
> Odele
>
> From: Jim Biard <jbiard at cicsnc.org<mailto:jbiard at cicsnc.org>>
> Date: Monday, May 18, 2015 at 8:48 AM
> To: Odele Coddington <odele.coddington at lasp.colorado.edu<mailto:odele.coddington at lasp.colorado.edu>>, Judith Lean <judith.lean at nrl.navy.mil<mailto:judith.lean at nrl.navy.mil>>, Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk<mailto:j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>>
> Cc: "alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk<mailto:alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk>" <alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk<mailto:alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk>>, "cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>" <cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>>, Peter Pilewskie <Peter.Pilewskie at lasp.colorado.edu<mailto:Peter.Pilewskie at lasp.colorado.edu>>, Daniel Wunder - NOAA Affiliate <daniel.wunder at noaa.gov<mailto:daniel.wunder at noaa.gov>>, "philip.jones at noaa.gov<mailto:philip.jones at noaa.gov>" <philip.jones at noaa.gov<mailto:philip.jones at noaa.gov>>
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New standard name requests for TSI and SSI
>
> Odele,
>
> If the _at_1au suffix is left off, I think we should definitely have the distance of the reference surface provided as a coordinate variable as Jonathan suggested. That would provide the most flexible definition for future use, so we don't have to add yet another standard name if someone comes along that wants to have a reference surface at 1 light year or 2 solar radii, etc.
>
> Grace and peace,
>
> Jim
>
> On 5/15/15 11:30 AM, Odele Coddington wrote:
> Hi all,
> I had hesitated to chime in so late in the email exchange. But, as the keeper of the CDR, here?s my take on it.
>
> I would highly be in favor of Jim Biard?s suggested names (with or without the _at_1au suffix). As Judith mentioned, there?s no time like the present to educate people. I don?t see any compelling reason why the standard names of the CF group should differ from the standard names of constants, units and uncertainty by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), or the UK equivalent of NIST, with definitions supported by the International System of Units (SI). For that reason, and despite what the convention of usage is in the CF program, I can?t support the usage of ?radiative_flux? for irradiance, because the units are simply incorrect.
>
> I note that the SI system, which has an international governing authority, ?modifies the SI as necessary to reflect the latest advances in science and technology? (http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/international.html).
> Surely, conventions can change since constants certainly have!
>
> Therefore, I support these name possibilities (with or without the _at_1au suffix, as this can be adequately explained in the definition). II highly favor the first pair:
>
> solar_irradiance
> solar_irradiance_per_unit_wavelength
>
> solar_radiative_flux_density
> solar_radiative_flux_density_per_unit_wavelength
>
> Best regards,
> Odele Coddington
>
> From: Judith Lean <judith.lean at nrl.navy.mil<mailto:judith.lean at nrl.navy.mil>>
> Date: Friday, May 15, 2015 at 9:00 AM
> To: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk<mailto:j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>>, Jim Biard <jbiard at cicsnc.org<mailto:jbiard at cicsnc.org>>
> Cc: "alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk<mailto:alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk>" <alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk<mailto:alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk>>, "cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>" <cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>>, Odele Coddington <odele.coddington at lasp.colorado.edu<mailto:odele.coddington at lasp.colorado.edu>>, Peter Pilewskie <Peter.Pilewskie at lasp.colorado.edu<mailto:Peter.Pilewskie at lasp.colorado.edu>>, Daniel Wunder - NOAA Affiliate <daniel.wunder at noaa.gov<mailto:daniel.wunder at noaa.gov>>, "philip.jones at noaa.gov<mailto:philip.jones at noaa.gov>" <philip.jones at noaa.gov<mailto:philip.jones at noaa.gov>>
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New standard name requests for TSI and SSI
>
> Dear Jonathan and JIm,
>
> I guess the argument favoring Jonathan?s terminology is that the public/non-experts will understand solar radiative flux (density) more readily than they will know what irradiance means?
> I actually find this myself when speaking with reporters and giving public lectures, for example - they prefer not to use the word irradiance since they - nor their audience - are familiar with tit. Solar radiation or brightness conveys more meaning to them, and I do tend to use these words more than irradiance.
>
> Having said that - theres no time like the present to educate people.
> Hence, I am happy with either of these ?common? names. Thanks to you both for ?designing?them for us.
>
> Judith
> ps
> Odele - what do you think? ..you?re the keeper of the CDR!
> Dan and Phil- from a NOAA perspective do you have a preference?
>
>
> On May 15, 2015, at 10:33 AM, Peter Pilewskie <Peter.Pilewskie at lasp.colorado.edu<mailto:Peter.Pilewskie at lasp.colorado.edu>> wrote:
>
> I prefer irradiance. This is the solar irradiance climate data record, after all!
>
> Peter
>
> On May 15, 2015, at 8:20 AM, "Jonathan Gregory" <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk<mailto:j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>> wrote:
>
> Dear Judith and Jim
>
> Thanks for sticking with this process, Judith, though it may be hard work.
>
> Thanks for your ideas, Jim. I largely agree with your arguments and so largely
> reach the same conclusions. There are two points on which we differ.
>
> * I prefer radiative_flux[_density] to irradiance because they mean the same,
> essentially, as far as I can see, so it's better to use a phrase we already
> have, for consistency. If we use a different one it might cause people to
> suppose it's a different quantity. We do have standard_names for spherical_
> irradiance, but that's not the same thing, and radiance is different too -
> it has different physical dimensions.
>
> * I didn't suggest _at_1au (or something like it) because it looks like a
> coordinate, and we don't put coordinates in standard names. But, now I say
> that, I wonder whether we should actually treat it as a coordinate. Could we
> not simply say, in the definition, that this quantity applies at a distance of
> one astronomical unit from the sun by default, but if a different distance is
> intended, a coordinate variable of distance_from_sun (for instance - we need a
> new standard name for it) should be supplied. That's a CF-like treatment.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> --
> [CICS-NC]<http://www.cicsnc.org/>Visit us on
> Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/cicsnc> Jim Biard
> Research Scholar
> Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites NC <http://cicsnc.org/>
> North Carolina State University <http://ncsu.edu/>
> NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information <http://ncdc.noaa.gov/>
> formerly NOAA?s National Climatic Data Center
> 151 Patton Ave, Asheville, NC 28801
> e: jbiard at cicsnc.org<mailto:jbiard at cicsnc.org>
> o: +1 828 271 4900
>
> We will be updating our social media soon. Follow our current Facebook (NOAA National Climatic Data Center<https://www.facebook.com/NOAANationalClimaticDataCenter> and NOAA National Oceanographic Data Center<https://www.facebook.com/noaa.nodc>) and Twitter (_at_NOAANCDC<https://twitter.com/NOAANCDC> and @NOAAOceanData<https://twitter.com/NOAAOceanData>) accounts for the latest information.
>
Received on Tue May 19 2015 - 15:23:23 BST
