Hi Jonathan, Frankly, no, I'm not certain. My thinking is that if anyone is using the existing standard_name, their data is somewhat underspecified, and since it could in principle be one of many types of CAPE, it would be preferable to point to the more generic name.
If anybody on the mailing list has an opinion about whether generic "CAPE" would make you think surface-based or something else, please speak up! (Because to be honest, I'm not much of an expert either; I just have some data that I need to make CF-compliant, and have been learning this topic as I go.) On the plus side, I suspect the question of where the alias points may well be entirely moot; the only CAPE data I've been able to find in netcdf form "in the wild" is CF-1.0 and has an empty standard_name. Cheers, --Seth On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 18:08:23 +0100 Jonathan Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: >Dear Seth > >It seems fine to delete "specific", I agree. The new names look good to me. > >Are you sure that >> atmosphere_specific_convective_available_potential_energy >should be an alias of >> atmosphere_convective_available_potential_energy >and not of >> atmosphere_convective_available_potential_energy_wrt_surface >Which is the more likely understanding of the existing name? (I don't know >- you're the expert!) > >Best wishes and thanks > >Jonathan >_______________________________________________ >CF-metadata mailing list >[email protected] >http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
