Dear Markus and Philip > > 6) We currently don't have any std_names with _due_to_aerosol. They > > all specify either _ambient_ or _dry_. > > > > MF: The reason why I didn't write "ambient" or "dry" here is that some > > data is neither nor. As written above, the sample is usually fed into a > > lab container (implicit warming) and dried (by diffusion dryer). Some > > sites, e.g. (sub)-tropical ones in summer, don't manage to dry the > > sample to < 40% RH. For these sites, the humidity state needs to be > > given in the file since it varies (I will correct the corresponding > > sentence in the definition), but it is neither dry nor ambient.
> [PJC] This is a challenge because it puts two CF goals in conflict, ie > accurately describing a variable and enabling quantities from different > instruments and models to intercompare. To put it another way, the problem > is that any data put into the std_name you suggest will be hard to use > without additional information, since there is no way to know whether like > quantities are being compared. Is it normal to have observation temperature > and humidity data along with the aerosol measurements? I agree that this could make the quantity a less useful description. If it is necessary to have this vaguer quantity, I would suggest saying ambient_or_dry_aerosol, just to be explicit that it is vague! Best wishes Jonathan _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
