Dear Christiane > >>-> _atmosphere or _in_atmosphere? > You suggest to change the postifx in_atmosphere into the prefix > atmosphere. I like the idea, in case it does not conflict with the > medium/component concept, see below.
OK. The guidelines currently give _in_atmosphere as a medium but in fact it is only the mole standard names that have followed this. All the other atmosphere standard_names have it as a prefix. You and I are now proposing to change moles_of_X_in_atmosphere to atmosphere_moles_of_X. I presume the same should be done for the small number of _in_troposphere standard names. The reason would be solely for consistency, to avoid confusion. > I do not understand why you say that "atmosphere" is a "component". Sorry, my mistake. I had not checked the terminology! One can't be too careful. > >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. > > I do not think that this is a good idea as some species change the state > when dissolved in water, e.g. so2->h2so3->->... i think it is essential > to have the medium as part of the standard name for quantities that are > very different. This would fit in the concept that the names in the CF > conventions should be easily human-understandable. OK. But if you are talking about being dissolved in water, I suppose you mean in_cloud_water rather than in the cloudy part of the grid-box. Is that right? I think that media of in_cloud_water (that would mean liquid or solid), in_cloud_liquid_water and in_cloud_ice would be fine where required. Best wishes Jonathan _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
