Hej, > 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? /Stefan
