Dear Gary Thanks for your email. Actually, I would argue that it's right as it stands, for two reasons:
* I think the unit really is a metre. Geopotential height is geopotential (canonically J kg-1 = m2 s-2) divided by gravitational acceleration (m s-2). * geopotential metre is not a udunit. I think this example is a good one to show that we don't generally use units in CF to indicate the quantity, because the latter is the purpose of the standard name. There are some exceptions, which CF inherited from COARDS, which did not offer standard names. Best wishes Jonathan ----- Forwarded message from Gary Meehan <[email protected]> ----- > Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 07:03:02 -0500 > From: Gary Meehan <[email protected]> > User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 > Thunderbird/17.0.5 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [CF-metadata] Suggest Amending the Dimension to > geopotential_height_at_volcanic_ash_cloud_top > > Dear CF Community, > > Last summer, my counterpart Jonathan Wrotny proposed a new standard > name to capture the geopotential > height of a volcanic ash cloud top. The standard name that was > settled upon is geopotential_height_at_volcanic_ash_cloud_top. > The dimension that was proposed is the meter. > > I would like to propose that this dimension be amended to > geopotential meter (gpm) to more accurately capture > the true nature of this physical quantity. > > Sincerely, > > Gary > > -- > Gary Meehan > Senior Staff Scientist > Atmospheric and Environmental Research > 131 Hartwell Avenue, Lexington, MA 02421-3126 > Tel (781) 761-2228 ? Fax (781) 761-2299 > e-mail: [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > CF-metadata mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata ----- End forwarded message ----- _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
