Dear Chris, The embedding of semantics in units of measure is something I have fought against for decades, largely because software agent AI algorithms are unlikely to look for them there. Your suggestion is also something that would never get past the guardians of UDUNITS.
However, I can understand your frustration with vital semantics being buried in the long name. Might a better solution be to include the necessary semantics in the Standard Name? This has been done previously. For example: surface_upward_mass_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon_due_to_anthropogenic_land_use_or_land_cover_change_excluding_forestry_and_agricultural_products sinking_mole_flux_of_calcite_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water All in all a search for '%flux%expressed_as_carbon%' turned up 39 hits. There are other examples that include phrases like 'expressed as 13C'. If you are using Standard Names that do not include the 'expressed_as' clause and no suitable alternatives with the clause exist then I would suggest that you put in a new Standard Name request. Cheers, Roy. I have now retired but will continue to be active through an Emeritus Fellowship using this e-mail address. ________________________________ From: CF-metadata <[email protected]> on behalf of Jones, Chris D <[email protected]> Sent: 31 January 2019 09:38 To: [email protected] Subject: [CF-metadata] CMIP6 Confusion regarding carbon flux units Dear Martin, dear All, it is emerging that groups are making errors in implementing the carbon cycle data requests - especially regarding the units of carbon fluxes. The issue is confusion over whether to report kg of CARBON or kg of CO2. The intended correct answer is buried deep within the long name, where fluxes are described as, “…. flux of CO2 expressed as carbon …”. But unless you know where to look this is rather hidden and is resulting in groups mixing units of carbon and CO2 across variables. So this is a request - actually a plea - that we revisit the decision to include the quantity in the units definition. I have heard the arguments that “kg C” is not an SI unit and we just need to explain it in the long name - but this is really not working and is causing real confusion and errors. So PLEASE, PLEASE, can we re-define the labels for carbon fluxes and stores in terms of “kgC m-2 s-1” etc. ? There has been such a massive effort to both define and implement this data request it would be a huge shame if substantial errors came in at the last minute - this small change will prevent that. thanks, Chris -- Dr Chris Jones Head, Earth System and Mitigation Science Team Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB, U.K. Tel: +44 (0)1392 884514 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 E-mail: [email protected] http://www.metoffice.gov.uk<http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/> This email and any attachments are intended solely for the use of the named recipients. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this email or any of its attachments and should notify the sender immediately and delete this email from your system. UK Research and Innovation has taken every reasonable precaution to minimise risk of this email or any attachments containing viruses or malware but the recipient should carry out its own virus and malware checks before opening the attachments. UK Research and Innovation does not accept any liability for any losses or damages which the recipient may sustain due to presence of any viruses. Opinions, conclusions or other information in this message and attachments that are not related directly to UK Research and Innovation business are solely those of the author and do not represent the views of UK Research and Innovation.
_______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
