On 26/11/14 17:52, alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk wrote:
> Dear Maarten,
>
> Thank you for your proposals. I have now created entries for them in the standard
> names editor at
> http://cfeditor.ceda.ac.uk/proposals/1?status=active&namefilter=&proposerfilter=Maarten&descfilter=&unitfilter=&yearfilter=&filter+and+display=Filter,
> so they certainly will not be lost. (At the moment they appear with blue headings
> to indicate that they are new proposals - I wanted to demonstrate this feature of
> the editor - but I will shortly change their status to "Under Discussion"). By
> proposing your names to the list they are already "in the process" so now it is a
> case of responding to any further comments as they arise. Names are formally
> accepted when consensus has been reached on the terms themselves, the definitions
> and units. Once accepted, they are automatically included in the next update of
> the standard name table.
>
> I have given my detailed comments on the individual proposals and your additional
> questions below.
>
> 1. toa_incoming_photon_solar_irradiance_per_unit_wavelength
>
> I agree with Jonathan's comment that "solar" is not really necessary and you have
> indicated that it is OK to remove it, so we would then have
> toa_incoming_photon_irradiance_per_unit_wavelength.
>
> Taking your own definition and adapting the wording slightly for consistency with
> existing "toa_incoming" and "irradiance" names I arrived at the following:
>
> "toa" means top of atmosphere. The TOA incoming photon irradiance is the photon
> flux from the sun on a surface perpendicular to the incoming radiation i.e. the
> "downwelling" flux. In accordance with common usage in geophysical disciplines,
> "flux" implies per unit area, called "flux density" in physics. A coordinate
> variable for radiation wavelength should be given the standard name
> radiation_wavelength. A photon flux is specified in terms of numbers of photons
> expressed in moles.
>
> Canonical unit: mol m-2 m-1 s-1
>
> As it stands, this looks fine and could probably be accepted for inclusion in the
> standard name table straight away. However, you included some notes about the
> coordinate variable and unit which need some further consideration. I'll address
> the units issues first, as these are the easiest to answer!
Hi,
I just noticed that the status of this proposal is still "Active (not on list or
rejected)". Shouldn't ehy have been marked "Under discussion" by now?
Best,
Maarten Sneep
--
KNMI
T: 030 2206747
E: maarten.sneep at knmi.nl
R: A2.14
Received on Mon Jun 29 2015 - 03:31:37 BST
