[CF-metadata] New standard names for OMIP: physics

Jonathan Gregory j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk
Tue May 23 08:47:10 MDT 2017


Dear Steve

> As defined in Table L1 of Griffies et al, the following diagnostics are XYT
> dimensioned (see entries 1,2,3 in Table L1):
> 
> integral_wrt_depth_of_product_of_sea_water_density_and_potential_temperature
> integral_wrt_depth_of_product_of_sea_water_density_and_conservative_temperature
> integral_wrt_depth_of_product_of_sea_water_density_and_salinity

That's fine. My point is that I don't think names with integral_wrt_depth
*must* be integrals throughout the whole depth. They could have a Z coordinate
to specify the depth range.

> bolus_eastward_sea_water_velocity:m s-1   <--> sea_water_eastward_
> velocity_from_parameterized_mesoscale_eddies
> bolus_northward_sea_water_velocity:m s-1   <--> sea_water_northward_
> velocity_from_parameterized_mesoscale_eddies
> bolus_sea_water_x_velocity:m s-1  <-->
> sea_water_x_velocity_from_parameterized_mesoscale_eddies
> bolus_sea_water_y_velocity:m s-1  <-->
> sea_water_y_velocity_from_parameterized_mesoscale_eddies
> bolus_upward_sea_water_velocity:m s-1 <-->
> sea_water_upward_velocity_from_parameterized_mesoscale_eddies
> ocean_tracer_bolus_biharmonic_diffusivity:m4 s-1  <-->
> ocean_tracer_biharmonic_diffusivity_due_to_parameterized_mesoscale_advection
> 
> ocean_tracer_bolus_laplacian_diffusivity:m2 s-1  <-->
> ocean_tracer_diffusivity_due_to_parameterized_mesoscale_advection

I agree, that makes sense, except that I'd prefer _due_to_ to _from_, for
consistency. I assume we put laplacian_diffusivity to draw the distinction
with biharmonic_diffusivity, but I suppose it's OK to omit _laplacian_ since
"diffusivity" in all other names means Laplacian, in m2 s-1.

Cheers

Jonathan



More information about the CF-metadata mailing list