joergklausen commented 3 years ago

Branch

https://github.com/wmo-im/wmds/blob/issue268/tables_en/1-01-01.csv https://github.com/wmo-im/wmds/blob/issue268/tables_en/superseded.txt

Summary and Purpose

Several variables in table 1-01-01 contain qualifiers like 'profile' or 'total column' or 'surface' in their name. In general, this context should not be captured in the variable name.

Stakeholder(s)

@joergklausen

Proposal

Remove the following entries and supersede them by more suitable variables:

notation	name	action
328	Cloud ice (total column)	supersede by existing entry 327, "Cloud ice", specify geometry: "Total column"
374	Cloud liquid water (CLW, total column)	supersede by existing entry 373, "Cloud liquid water (CLW)", specify geometry: "Total column"
262	Surface ozone	supersede by new entry "O3 (ozone)", specify observed layer: "Surface"
263	Total column ozone	supersede by new entry "O3 (ozone)", specify geometry: "Total column"
264	Vertical ozone profile	supersede by new entry "O3 (ozone)", specify geometry: "Vertical profile"
227	Temperature profile	supersede by new entry "Temperature", specify geometry: "Vertical profile"
256	Watervapor profile	supersede by new entry "Water vapor", specify geometry: "Vertical profile"
12000	Atmospheric pressure profile	supersede by existing entry 216, "Atmospheric pressure", specify geometry: "Vertical profile"

This requires the addition of the following new variables:	notation	name
new id	O3 (ozone)	IUPAC: ozone, PubChem CID: 24823, CAS Number: 10028-15-6, in gas phase
new id	Temperature
new id	Water vapor

Remove "3D field" from variable descriptions where relevant:	notation	name	description (old)
315	Aerosol Extinction Coefficient	3D field of spectral volumetric extinction cross-section of aerosol particles.	Spectral volumetric extinction cross-section of aerosol particles.
39	Atmospheric density	3D field of density of the atmosphere.	Density of the atmosphere.
181	Cloud drop effective radius	Size distribution of liquid water drops, assimilated to spheres of the same volume. Considered as both a 3D field throughout the troposphere and a 2D field at the top of cloud surface.	Size distribution of liquid water drops, assimilated to spheres of the same volume.
327	Cloud ice	3D field of atmospheric water in the solid phase (precipitating or not).	Atmospheric water in the solid phase (precipitating or not).
329	Cloud ice effective radius	Size distribution of ice particles, assimilated to spheres of the same volume. Considered as both a 3D field throughout the troposphere and a 2D field at the top of cloud surface	Size distribution of ice particles, assimilated to spheres of the same volume.
373	Cloud liquid water (CLW)	3D field of atmospheric water in the liquid phase (precipitating or not).	Atmospheric water in the liquid phase (precipitating or not).
188	PSC occurrence	3D field of Polar Stratospheric Clouds occurrence. - Accuracy expressed as Hit Rate [ HR ] and False Alarm Rate [ FAR ].Simplified: [ FAR/HR]	Polar Stratospheric Clouds occurrence. - Accuracy expressed as Hit Rate [ HR ] and False Alarm Rate [ FAR ].Simplified: [ FAR/HR]
249	Turbulence	3D field of kinetic energy density of turbulent motion of the air	Kinetic energy density of turbulent motion of the air
206	H2O (as a chemical species)	3D field of mole fraction of H2O = Water vapour (intended as a chemical species relevant for atmospheric chemistry).	H2O = Water vapour (intended as a chemical species relevant for atmospheric chemistry).
207	HDO (as a chemical species)	3D field of mole fraction of HDO = Water vapour (with one hydrogen nucleus replaced by its deuterium isotope)	HDO = Water vapour (with one hydrogen nucleus replaced by its deuterium isotope)

Reason

The code lists are simplified if the geometry is not part of the variable name and inconsistent combinations such as 'atmospheric temperature profile' with geometry 'point' can be avoided. Users can specify the geometry explicitly.

Original comment:

Branch https://github.com/wmo-im/wmds/blob/issue268/tables_en/1-01-01.csv

Summary and Purpose Several variables contain qualifiers like 'profile' or 'total column' or 'surface' in their name. In general, this context should not be captured in the variable name.

Stakeholder(s) [include emails or handles as relevant]

Proposal Establish a list of variables concerned and supersede variable names that have the context in their name with those that don't. Other attributes describing the observation such as geometry of observation and observed layer are more adequate to specify this context.

Reason The code lists are simplified if the geometry is not part of the variable name and inconsistent combinations such as 'atmospheric temperature profile' with geometry 'point' can be avoided. Users can specify the geometry explicitly.

rhornbrook commented 3 years ago

strongly agree.

ejwelton commented 3 years ago

I also agree, relates problems outlines in issue #263 also.

fstuerzl commented 3 years ago

Variables with qualifiers refering to "geometry" or "observed layer":

notation	name	action
729	Aerosol volcanic ash (Total column)	supersede by new entry "Aerosol volcanic ash", specify geometry: "Total column"
328	Cloud ice (total column)	supersede by existing entry 327, "Cloud ice", specify geometry: "Total column"
374	Cloud liquid water (CLW, total column)	supersede by existing entry 373, "Cloud liquid water (CLW)", specify geometry: "Total column"
262	Surface ozone	supersede by new entry "O3 (ozone)", specify observed layer: "Surface"
263	Total column ozone	supersede by new entry "O3 (ozone)", specify geometry: "Total column"
264	Vertical ozone profile	supersede by new entry "O3 (ozone)", specify geometry: "Vertical profile"
227	Temperature profile	supersede by new entry "Temperature", specify geometry: "Vertical profile"
256	Watervapor profile	supersede by new entry "Water vapor", specify geometry: "Vertical profile"
12000	Atmospheric pressure profile	supersede by existing entry 216, "Atmospheric pressure", specify geometry: "Vertical profile"

View differences in branch:

joergklausen commented 3 years ago

The constraint '3D field of' should also disappear, and the appropriate geometry of observation (point, volume) should be attributed instead.

fstuerzl commented 3 years ago

All instances of "3D field" removed: https://github.com/wmo-im/wmds/commit/698f6fd779f4637fe73e6a6cb1fc63b92cd88f2f#diff-160fbee712206a9a655a755c35b0b78b48ab1514bf8937984c6069c5fdf6ba6d

gaochen-larc commented 3 years ago

I endorse this proposal.

joergklausen commented 3 years ago

Regarding	262	Surface ozone	supersede by new entry "O3 (ozone)", specify observed layer: "Surface"

the observed layer is a concept that is unrelated to geometry, which is what needs to be specified here, i.e.	262	Surface ozone	supersede by new entry "O3 (ozone)", specify geometry: "Point"

joergklausen commented 3 years ago

@ferrighi @jbianchi Please confirm validity of branch.

jbianchi81 commented 3 years ago

I confirm validity of the branch

jbianchi81 commented 3 years ago

Sorry that I didn't notice before, but I saw that there is the same issue in 1-01-05. For example, we have: 12009 Glacier mass balance at a point 12010 Glacier-wide mass balance Also, some descriptions use the word 'map', meaning spatial (2D) distribution of the variable: 168 Lake level Map of the height of the lake surface. 237 Land surface topography Map of land surface heights.

If you agree, I can make a revision of existing terms in 1-01-05 and provide a proposal. After that I can open a new issue to add new terms

jbianchi81 commented 3 years ago

List of proposed changes to 1-01-05 (on existing entries): To merge "land surface temperature" with "soil temperature" (discussion needed) To change "lake surface temperature" to "water body temperature" (water body could be a term encompassing lakes, rivers and other surface water bodies) To Merge "lake level" with "river stage (level above reference)" and change description to remove spatial extent Change "land surface topography" to "land surface height" and change description to remove spatial extent To merge "soil moisture at roots region" with " soil moisture at surface" Change "glacier topography" to "glacier height" and change description to remove spatial extent Change "ice sheet topography" to "ice sheet height" and change description to remove spatial extent Merge 2 "glacier mass-balance" entries and remove spatial extent from description Change "Surface accumulation at a point" to "Glacier ice/snow accumulation" and change description to remove spatial extent Change "Surface ablation at a point" to "Glacier ice/snow ablation" and change description to remove spatial extent 1-01-05 revised.csv

rodicanitu commented 3 years ago

@jbianchi81 - I recommend that we run the proposed changes through the relevant communities, as, for example, the glacier variables have been agreed to, through a consultation with relevant experts, and the same process is under way with sea ice variables. The particular spatial extent for glaciers, i.e. "at a point" vs "glacier wide" need to be available for selection. not sure this is hte case. Also, I'm not so sure of the proposal for changing "Surface accumulation at a point" to "Glacier ice/snow accumulation" "Surface ablation at a point" to "Glacier ice/snow ablation". Could you please elaborate on the benefits of collating snow and ice (only glaciers?). I recommend retaining snow and glaciers as separate components of the cryosphere.

jbianchi81 commented 3 years ago

@rodicanitu thanks for the comments. I agree that the changes run through relevant communities. My intention with this proposal was to remove spatial extent from variable name. But from now on I will propose changes only for hydrology terms.

ferrighi commented 3 years ago

The compiled branch including changes in 1-01-01 from @fstuerzl is good for me. I have found only once inconsistency. "Watervapor profile" should be superseded by new entry "Water vapor", but the name used in the branch is "Watervapor" instead. @jbianchi81 I agree with @rodicanitu for the table 1-01-05 we should maybe have some expert review this as the changes you are suggesting are not minor?

gaochen-larc commented 3 years ago

@joergklausen "Surface Ozone" often refers to ozone measured at 2 m above the ground for monitoring stations. "specify geometry: "Point"" would need to define the location of the "point", especially when considering aircraft based measurements.

fstuerzl commented 3 years ago

The compiled branch including changes in 1-01-01 from @fstuerzl is good for me. I have found only once inconsistency. "Watervapor profile" should be superseded by new entry "Water vapor", but the name used in the branch is "Watervapor" instead.

@ferrighi, I corrected this in the branch, using the british english version "Water vapour" to be consistent with other entries.

@joergklausen "Surface Ozone" often refers to ozone measured at 2 m above the ground for monitoring stations. "specify geometry: "Point"" would need to define the location of the "point", especially when considering aircraft based measurements.

@gaochen-larc, so you suggest to keep the entry for now until we have a way to specify the observed layer?

joergklausen commented 3 years ago

@rodicanitu thanks for the comments. I agree that the changes run through relevant communities. My intention with this proposal was to remove spatial extent from variable name. But from now on I will propose changes only for hydrology terms.

@rodicanitu @jbianchi81 Indeed, the cryosphere terminology was subject of the previous FT, hence, I think these terms should stay. Regarding the specification "at a point" vs "glacier wide", please consider if the geometry attribute serves the purpose. "at a point" maps to "point", while "glacierwide" maps to "area" in my view.

@ferrighi @gaochen-larc "Surface" ozone is actually measured at different heightAboveLocalReferenceSurface in the various networks, 2m would seem almost too close to the ground for my taste. I think we should be consistent in our approach of specifying the observed variable as "ozone [in the gas phase]" and use the geometry attribute to specify that aspect, the heightAboveLocalReferenceSurface for that aspect and the geospatialLocation to specify that aspect. For aircraft, the facilityType is 'mobile', and a suite of geospatialLocation can be documented. This approach works for all types of observing facility and instrument as far as I can see.

Thoughts?

gaochen-larc commented 3 years ago

I think we need to keep "point" as it will be useful for mobile measurements. I agree with @joergklausen 's idea, but wondering if we can just use "AboveSurface" and define it as measurement from ground level platform at a fixed height(s) above local, e.g., ground site, vehicle based lab, or tower. Just a thought...

ferrighi commented 3 years ago

It seems here the only open discussion is Ozone and for this issue we have a need to specify a geometry. Do we agree to use "O3 (ozone)" as name and "Point" for specifying geometry @gaochen-larc @joergklausen ?

joergklausen commented 3 years ago

It seems here the only open discussion is Ozone and for this issue we have a need to specify a geometry. Do we agree to use "O3 (ozone)" as name and "Point" for specifying geometry @gaochen-larc @joergklausen ?

I would do so. I will also explore if 'observedLayer' could just be another 'parameter' in the OM_Observation ... it may be useful for other observations, as well (e.g., lake surface temperature). Now that we are considering using this feature of the model, we might as well make good use of it. The heightAboveLocalReferenceSurface can remain as a detailed specification.

fierz commented 3 years ago

@joergklausen @rodicanitu @jbianchi81 et al.

Glacier variables

In principle I agree with the idea of removing spatial extent from variable names and keeping basic variables only. Thus at first sight, and from my very personal point of view, the two variables Glacier mass balance at a point and Glacier-wide mass balance could be merged to one and be characterized by point and area. However, as already suggested by Rodica, I would strongly advocate that such a merge/change would have to be discussed by glaciologists first. Indeed, there are subtle differences between point, glaciological, and geodetic mass balance measurements that need to be taken in account. There is currently a task team working on best practices for glaciers that could provide an answer to it. The same is true for changes from topography to height. I think the better term would be thickness, but again, ask the experts!

Surface

While I also think an attribute like observedLayer could be helpful in some cases, I strongly disagree with defining surface as a layer. If the definition of a variable says at its surface, it does not refer to the geometry of the measurement but to a reference level. In my view this is also true, for example, in the case of snow, lake, or sea ice surface temperature.

gaochen-larc commented 3 years ago

It seems here the only open discussion is Ozone and for this issue we have a need to specify a geometry. Do we agree to use "O3 (ozone)" as name and "Point" for specifying geometry @gaochen-larc @joergklausen ?

I would do so. I will also explore if 'observedLayer' could just be another 'parameter' in the OM_Observation ... it may be useful for other observations, as well (e.g., lake surface temperature). Now that we are considering using this feature of the model, we might as well make good use of it. The heightAboveLocalReferenceSurface can remain as a detailed specification.

I agree

rodicanitu commented 3 years ago

@joergklausen @jbianchi81 @fierz after consultations with glaciologists, on variables 12009 Glacier mass balance at a point and 12010 Glacier-wide mass balance, there is wide consensus that

Therefore, the glacier experts are advising against removing the spatial extent and changing the variable name. Furthermore, such a change would need a thorough review and broad acceptance in the glaciological community which is a difficult and long process.
for these two glaciological variables, significant ambiguity would be caused when NOT prominently specifying "point" or "glacier-wide" in the variable name.
The two variables have quite different implications, regarding their measurement, their further evaluation, their role as climate indicator, as well as for assessing climate change impacts. In fact, the concept of very clearing separating between the two variables has only emerged relatively recently, and there was confusion sometimes before.

(credit for the summary of feedback: Prof. Matthias Huss, ETH)

In the same spirit, the other glacier variables need to remain as recently recommended in consultation with the relevant expert community. thanks.

fierz commented 3 years ago

In the same spirit, the other glacier variables need to remain as recently recommended in consultation with the relevant expert community. thanks.

Thanks to Mathias Huss for his clear answer on that topic. I thus fully concur with Rodica's conclusion.

joergklausen commented 3 years ago

glacier variables remain for the time being, other changes reviewed in branch.

amilan17 commented 3 years ago

@fstuerzl Can you update the summary of the issue with the details of what is changed and what is superseded?

fstuerzl commented 3 years ago

@amilan17, I've updated the proposal above and included a table with all new variables and changed descriptions.

wmo-im / wmds

1-01-01 Remove spatial extent from variable name #268

Branch

Summary and Purpose

Stakeholder(s)

Proposal

Reason

Glacier variables

Surface