I vote yes. I agree with most of Seth's post except his conclusion to vote no. The likely confusion generated by "flux density" has to be weighed against the current _and future_ confusion generated by "flux", and will lessen over time in any case. Among the upsides of switching to terminology that is more scientifically accurate must be counted the improved consistency and authority of CF. Fewer instances of "Why does CF call it something different than my textbook?". Finally, science is an iterative process where "mistakes" are corrected not glossed-over once recognized. The exercise of renaming so many quantities will help ensure that people and automated tools retain that perspective.
Hashtag #CFY2K. cz -- Charlie Zender, Earth System Sci. & Computer Sci. University of California, Irvine 949-891-2429 )'( _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
