Dear Christiane You have pointed out there are actually two separate issues.
> -> _atmosphere or _in_atmosphere? > Why are moles_of_G treated differently? My fault, I'm afraid, as I think I proposed moles_of_G_in_atmosphere. I meant the same as atmosphere_moles_of_G or atmosphere_number_of_moles_of_G but these alternatives didn't sound natural, and I thought the proposal was better human language although it was inconsistent. Perhaps we should change to atmosphere_moles_of_G. Does that make sense as a phrase? > For chemical names > there is another difference, and I was referring to this: atmosphere > means not-ocean, not-land, not-vergation, etc., in the Earth system, but > in the atmosphere. This includes in_air, in_clouds, in_precipitation, > etc. Hence, in_air is a sub-element of (_in)_atmosphere, at least this > is what I thought we had defined. I agree that atmosphere means not-ocean etc. It is a "component" in the guidelines. The standard names for "atmosphere" are properties of the atmos as a whole. I assume that the "medium" in_air means a local measurement in air, regardless of whether it is in a cloudy or a cloud-free region. I suggest that the right way to distinguish these in CF would be with cell_methods, as they are different parts of the gridbox. We already have cloud and clear_sky as area_types, so you can specify e.g. "area: mean where cloud" in cell_methods for an in_air quantity to restrict it to the cloudy air. Perhaps clear-sky isn't the best choice, as that refers to a 2D view of the atmosphere. As these area-types are new, it maybe wouldn't be too late to change it, for instance to cloud_free. Quantities measured in precipitation, not in air, are a new medium, I suppose. Do you need to name such quantities? Best wishes Jonathan _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
