Dear Sara
That makes sense to me. Given what the guidelines say, maybe we should change
thunderstorm_probability to probability_of_thundstorm. It is the only existing
probability standard name, I see.
Best wishes
Jonathan
----- Forwarded message from H?rnquist Sara <Sara.Hornquist at smhi.se> -----
> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 11:40:59 +0000
> From: H?rnquist Sara <Sara.Hornquist at smhi.se>
> To: "cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu" <cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> Subject: [CF-metadata] New standard name for probability of cloud
>
> Dear all,
>
> I'd like to suggest "probability_of_cloud", alternatively "cloud_probability", as a new standard name.
>
> There is a demand from many users (e.g. from the producers of sea surface temperatures, SST) to shift from a binary cloud mask in satellite derived products to a cloud mask expressed as a cloud probability. This would better account for uncertainties in the derived cloud information and would allow for that those uncertainties can be used in downstream processing for assessing the impacts on other products (like SST).
>
> The new standard nam should follow the structure of 'thunderstorm_probability':
> "probability_of_X" means the chance that X is true or of at least one occurrence of X. Space and time coordinates must be used to indicate the area and time-interval to which a probability applies.
>
> The unit should be either 'percent' or '1'.
>
> Best regards,
> Sara Hornquist
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
----- End forwarded message -----
Received on Tue Dec 13 2016 - 06:43:12 GMT
