Dear Alison > We have four existing volume scattering names: > volume_scattering_function_of_radiative_flux_in_sea_water > volume_scattering_coefficient_of_radiative_flux_in_sea_water > volume_scattering_coefficient_in_air_due_to_ambient_aerosol_particles > volume_scattering_coefficient_in_air_due_to_dried_aerosol_particles. > I notice that both the sea_water ones say 'of_radiative_flux' while neither > of the 'air' names do. I think it does make sense to specify what is being > scattered so I suggest we modify the current proposal to: > volume_scattering_function_of_radiative_flux_in_air_due_to_ambient_aerosol_particles > and that we also create aliases for the existing in_air names.
Yes, I agree. Good idea. > 3. integral_wrt_time_of_mole_stomatal_uptake_of_ozone (mol m-2 s-1) That's good too. I agree that if it's a time-integral it should be mol m-2. Well-spotted. I hope it's right in the CMIP6 tables. Best wishes Jonathan _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
