Dear Judith and Jim Thanks for sticking with this process, Judith, though it may be hard work.
Thanks for your ideas, Jim. I largely agree with your arguments and so largely reach the same conclusions. There are two points on which we differ. * I prefer radiative_flux[_density] to irradiance because they mean the same, essentially, as far as I can see, so it's better to use a phrase we already have, for consistency. If we use a different one it might cause people to suppose it's a different quantity. We do have standard_names for spherical_ irradiance, but that's not the same thing, and radiance is different too - it has different physical dimensions. * I didn't suggest _at_1au (or something like it) because it looks like a coordinate, and we don't put coordinates in standard names. But, now I say that, I wonder whether we should actually treat it as a coordinate. Could we not simply say, in the definition, that this quantity applies at a distance of one astronomical unit from the sun by default, but if a different distance is intended, a coordinate variable of distance_from_sun (for instance - we need a new standard name for it) should be supplied. That's a CF-like treatment. Best wishes Jonathan _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
