Dear Alison > I think the key is that all these names refer to water collected at, or close > to, the surface (including the vegetation canopy).
> In contrast to the amount names, I think the mass_content names mean mass per > unit area integrated throughout the entire atmospheric column or through a > specified atmospheric layer. The concept is therefore not quite the same as > thinking of a substance collected at the surface. I agree that's basically the distinction. We've used "amount" for a mass per unit area on a surface e.g. rainfall_amount, sea_ice_amount, whereas "mass content" is mass per unit area contained within a medium. > I suggest that we don't alter all the amount names to use mass_content, but > instead review them to make sure that both they and their definitions are > clearly marked as surface/canopy quantities. Does that sound like a > reasonable way forwards? Yes, I think so. Thanks Best wishes Jonathan _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
