Hi Alison and Kevin,
> Essentially, proposals 8 and 9 are describing the same concept with the only difference being that the first is integrated over a layer from the sea surface to some specified depth while 9 is integrated over the whole ocean depth. We have existing names that refer to atmosphere and ocean layers (also permafrost and soil layers) but we generally try to avoid using the word 'total' in standard names. Based on these considerations I'd suggest that proposal 8 should be integral_of_sea_water_practical_salinity_wrt_depth_in_ocean_layer and proposal 9 should be ocean_integral_of_sea_water_practical_salinity_wrt_to_depth where the use of the word 'ocean' implies integration over the entire water column, consistent with its use in existing names. What do you think?
[_at_Alison, a minor typo is the 'to' on
ocean_integral_of_sea_water_practical_salinity_wrt_to_depth it's already
in the 'wrt']
Just to mention that for NEMO there are already (from 2008, see [1])
some standard_name definitions which are not coherent with Alison's
proposal about the layer:
integral_of_sea_water_potential_temperature_wrt_depth_expressed_as_heat_content
> "integral_of_Y_wrt_X" means int Y dX. The data variable should have an
> axis for X specifying the limits of the integral as bounds. "wrt"
> means with respect to. "expressed_as_heat_content" means that this
> quantity is calculated as the (assumed constant) specific heat
> capacity times density of sea water multiplied by the integral, over
> the specified layer of the ocean, of the sea water potential
> temperature wrt depth.
and following Alison's suggestion it should be read as:
integral_of_sea_water_potential_temperature_wrt_depth_in_ocean_layer_expressed_as_heat_content
should be propose new one standard_name?
With respect to:
> 9. integral_of_sea_water_practical_salinity_wrt_total_depth (m)
> 'This quantity is calculated as the integral, of the sea water salinty, over of the ocean from the sea surface to the sea bed. "integral_of_Y_wrt_X" means int Y dX. The data variable should have an axis for X specifying the limits of the integral as bounds. "wrt" means with respect to. "Layer" means any layer with upper and lower boundaries that have constant values in some vertical coordinate. There must be a vertical coordinate variable indicating the extent of the layer(s). If the layers are model layers, the vertical coordinate can be model_level_number, but it is recommended to specify a physical coordinate (in a scalar or auxiliary coordinate variable) as well. Depth is the vertical distance below the surface.
what ever is the final standard_name, it would convenient to remove axis requirement for the X (i.e. depth). The reason is because the interval limits (bounds) are not constant along every grid point. What do you think?Best regards
Antonio
[1]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/2008/052500.html
> Best wishes,
> Alison
>
> ------
> Alison Pamment Tel: +44 1235 778065
> Centre for Environmental Data Analysis Email: alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk
> STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> R25, 2.22
> Harwell Campus, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
--
Antonio S. Cofi?o
Associate Professor and Researcher
Grupo de Meteorolog?a de Santander
Dep. of Applied Mathematics and Computer Sciences
Universidad de Cantabria (Spain)
Academic Visitor
National Centre for Atmospheric Science
Department of Meteorology
School of Mathematical, Physical and Computational Sciences
University of Reading (UK)
http://antonio.cofino.es
Received on Fri Oct 28 2016 - 07:52:03 BST
