> With our present definition of VMRs, we agree on that having 78% N2, 21% O2 
> and e.g. 3% H2O is unphysical? That with a lot of H2O (or any other non-fixed 
> gas) the standard values of the fixed gases should be scaled downwards. In 
> the example above, with 0.97. Do you agree?

Yes, I agree.

>> It seems a bit weird to me to use this definition at the (low) level of the 
>> absorption routines. Perhaps one solutions would be to have an option for 
>> this behaviour when ingesting concentration profile data? Perhaps by passing 
>> in a list of species that should be considered as not adding to the 
>> denominator for the VMR definition.
> If we agree on the above, then this is the simplest (but not most 
> theoretically correct) solution.

Why not correct?


Reply via email to