Dear Martin > Proposed name: integral_wrt_time_of_stomatal_ozone_flux_excess
I appreciate that not all fluxes have their sign convention mentioned in the name, but in the case of precipitation, for example, I think it's obvious - that's not quite so with ozone_flux, I would say - on reflection, I guess that plants don't ever produce ozone, so the flux should be into the stomata, but although it can be clarified in the definition, as you say, I feel it would be even better to choose a word in the standard name which indicates which way the flux is going e.g. flux_into_stomata. There are existing names containing mole_flux_of_SPECIES. This is one of those so it might be good to follow that pattern too. I see that pod0 has a threshold of zero. You're proposing something more general, which could support any threshold, but is the threshold ever going to be non-zero? If zero is the only possibility, it doesn't need to be described as an excess. > (3b) stomatal_ozone_flux_threshold [mol m-2 s-1] > > A standard name to be used on variable specifying a threshold value of > stomatal ozone flux. This quantity would be more generally useful if "threshold" was omitted. I'm aware there is an air_temperature_threshold in the table, but I see no reason why a quantity used as a threshold must have "threshold" in its name. Best wishes and thanks Jonathan _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
