Dear Daniel > >Do you mean e.g. > >mass_fraction_of_ambient_pm10_in_air > >mass_fraction_of_dry_pm10_in_air > >mass_fraction_of_water_in_pm10_in_air > >I'm not sure that I understand, but I don't think ambient = dry + water > >in this case, because the last one appears to mean the mass fraction of > >the ambient aerosol which is water. I have a vague recollection of discussing > >before what this was intended to mean. Do you want to describe the mass > >fraction of the air which is the water of the ambient aerosol? > Ah! I interpreted > "mass_fraction_of_water_in_ambient_aerosol_particles_in_air" > wrongly. I interpreted it as fraction of > "water_in_ambient_aerosol_particles" in "air". But actually, it > means fraction of "water" in "ambient_aerosol_particles_in_air"?
Actually I think you were right, and I was wrong e.g. mass_fraction_of_water_in_ambient_aerosol_particles_in_air must be an example of the pattern mass_fraction_of_X_in_air so X=water_in_ambient_aerosol_particles, as you say. Therefore the sum does add up as you say. However the definition of this existing standard name does not comment on the perplexity of two "in"s. I do believe we discussed this before, but I can't remember when. I wonder whether we could take advantage of your proposal to change these names in order to remove the problem. What would read most clearly? For example mass_fraction_of_water_contained_within_pm10_in_air "contained within" is a longer way of saying "content of", which would be more natural, but I wouldn't suggest that because "content" is used in another specific sense in standard names (the amount of something per unit area). Best wishes Jonathan _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
