The attempt to as sea surface - SS prefixes was only to follow the
convention as my understanding was that the convention could not handle two
variables with the same name but different dimensions. If that is not
truly a problem on your end, then perhaps it is a non issue.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Jonathan Gregory <
j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk> wrote:
> Dear Alison
>
> I agree with you and Roy about the below. I think that it would be much
> better
> to specify the depth of measurement, unless they really have the same
> unavoidable vagueness of SST and SSS. In the case of those quantities, we
> followed the existing universally used terminology rather than defining our
> own, as we often do for clarity - perhaps that was a mistake!
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
>
> > d. Surface concentration names
> > There are a lot of these: 42 surface_mole_concentration names (units of
> mol m-3), 6 surface_mass_concentration names (kg m-3) and I'm also
> including 2 surface_sea_water_alkalinity (mol m-3) names and 3
> surface_sea_water_ph names in this section.
> >
> > My concern about these proposals is that the names and units are not
> consistent. In CF standard names, "surface" means the lower boundary of the
> atmosphere. It has no depth, so it is not meaningful to regard it as having
> a mass or a volume. For this reason we can't assign units of kg m-3 or mol
> m-3 to a 'surface' name. I assume that all these quantities are in fact
> "near surface" values, i.e. representative of the top model layer, in which
> case there are two possible ways to deal with this.
> >
> > The first solution is simply to remove 'surface' from all these names
> and instead use a vertical coordinate or scalar coordinate and coordinate
> bounds to indicate the location and thickness of the layer. This has the
> advantage that many of the required names actually already exist, without
> the need to introduce separate surface names. E.g, instead of adding a new
> name surface_mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_carbon_in_sea_water,
> you could use the existing name mole_concentration_of_
> dissolved_inorganic_carbon_in_sea_water accompanied by suitable
> coordinate information to describe your quantity.
> >
> > The second solution, if you do feel that it is necessary to have
> distinct standard names for all these near-surface quantities, would be to
> follow the approach used in some existing sea_surface names such as
> sea_surface_temperature and sea_surface_salinity. The names would then be
> 'sea_surface' names and there would be an accompanying sentence in the
> definition to explain what that means, i.e. that it refers to water close
> to the surface. You would still also need to include the coordinate
> information and coordinate bounds to fully describe your data. With this
> approach the proposed name surface_mole_concentration_of_
> dissolved_inorganic_carbon_in_sea_water would become sea_surface_mole_
> concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_carbon.
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20161020/fb89c5e3/attachment.html>
Received on Thu Oct 20 2016 - 11:20:26 BST
