Standard names: *time varying ocean gridbox thickness*

[jmecki]

Before submitting an issue be sure you have read and understood the rules for vocabulary changes and review the guidance for constructing standard names

Please note that it is fine to group together a number of proposals in a single GitHub issue (i.e. it is not necessary to open a separate issue for each vocabulary term). Change proposals should include the following information as applicable.

Proposer's name
Jenny Mecking

Date
Sept. 8, 2024

For each term please try to give the following:

- Term
ocean_gridcell_thickness_on_t_points

- Description
Time varying ocean gridbox thickness at t points.

- Units
m

- Term
ocean_gridcell_thickness_on_u_points

- Description
Time varying ocean gridbox thickness at u points.

- Units
m

- Term
ocean_gridcell_thickness_on_v_points

- Description
Time varying ocean gridbox thickness at v points.

- Units
m

[github-actions]

Thank you for your proposal. These terms will be added to the cfeditor (http://cfeditor.ceda.ac.uk/proposals/1) shortly. Your proposal will then be reviewed and commented on by the community and Standard Names moderator.

[JonathanGregory]

Dear Jenni @jmecki

There is an existing standard name cell_thickness which would be appropriate for ocean gridcell thickness. In CF terms, the description of the grid is not part of the standard name, because a geophysical quantity is always the same thing, regardless of the grid. The coordinate variables define the grid. You could use the long_name if you want to describe which grid a variable is on.

Best wishes

Jonathan

[jmecki]

Thanks Jonathan. That makes sense, it is also possible to compute the thickness on u and v points if you know the Arakawa grid the model uses. I'm happy to have this one closed without a new name being generated.

[github-actions]

This issue has had no activity in the last 30 days. Accordingly:

• If you proposed this issue or have contributed to the
  discussion, please reply to any outstanding concerns.
• If there has been little or no discussion, please comment
  on this issue, to assist with reaching a decision.
• If the proposal seems to have come to a consensus, please
  wait for the moderators to take the next steps towards
  acceptance.

Standard name moderators are also reminded to review @feggleton @japamment @efisher008