Dear Jonathan, Why do you not think that there is a problem if 'atmosphere' is stated to be synonymous to _in_air, if this is simply wrong?
And the position of _atmosphere or _in_atmopshere should be consistent to allow for automatic generation of standard names as discussed for aerosols and chemistry, and to avoid the each time the discussion starts again. I do not understand the reason for having atmosphere_mass_content_of_<X> moles_of_<G>_in_atmosphere and if there is no reason, why create confusion? Best regards, Christiane Jonathan Gregory schrieb: > Dear Christiane > >> The Guidelines for Construction of CF Standard Names >> http://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/documents/cf-standard-names/guidelines state for 'atmosphere' under 'Special Phrases': >> 'atmosphere: >> used instead of in_air for quantities which are large-scale rather than >> local ' >> In addition, 'atmosphere' is not consistently placed: >> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_<X>_due_to_<process> >> Tendency_of_moles_of_<G>_in_atmosphere > > I don't really see the problem with this. We introduced in_atmosphere because > "atmosphere_moles_of_<G>" didn't sound natural. It's just a grammatical rule > for standard names that we use _in_atmosphere in this case instead of the > atmosphere prefix, I would say. There are a lot of names with the atmosphere > prefix and I wouldn't say there's a strong reason for changing it. > > Best wishes > > Jonathan _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
