Dear Martin, All,
Thank you for this proposal and the discussion of a standard name to describe
all types of solid precipitation. I have reviewed the thread and it seems
agreement has been reached on
solid_precipitation_flux (kg m-2 s-1)
'In accordance with common usage in geophysical discipline
Dear Andy
> - I'm only going to do this for sea water levels, so from my point of view
> using the term "sea" is fine; I'm just aware that what comes below could be
> applied in other water bodies
Yes. However, we make our job simpler (as a principle in CF) by doing only what
we need to for the
Dear Jonathon,
Probably useful if I'm specific about how the variables I want to use with
these names will be applied/derived.
- I'm only going to do this for sea water levels, so from my point of view
using the term "sea" is fine; I'm just aware that what comes below could be
applied in othe
Dear Martin
Tricky! I'm not sure that is better. Yes, I think you've correctly described
why I'm uncomfortable. Could you give other examples of this expanded use of
expressed_as, for comparison?
What do we actually want to mean with these new GPP names? Is it just the mass
of 13C atoms in the GP
Dear Andy
> "elevation_of_sea_surface_due_to_X" sounds most appropriate.
OK.
Since we already have
water_surface_height_above_reference_datum
water_surface_reference_datum_altitude
in the table, I agree that water_surface is OK to use. In general in standard
names we have made the word "sea"
Thanks Jonathon,
Of the below "elevation_of_sea_surface_due_to_X" sounds most appropriate.
But sticking with the previously suggested sea_surface_elevation theme and
noting that tides, surges and waves can also occur in large inland water bodies
such as the Great Lakes, how about using the more
Hello Jonathan,
I think the usage of "expressed_as" has crept into new areas, while remaining
consistent with the definition as given in the standard names. The current help
text says "It means that the quantity indicated by the standard name is
calculated solely with respect to the B contain
Dear Martin
Yes, I see what you mean, but nonetheless it seems odd to me. Is it normal
to express GPP as mass of 13C? For example, this would be like expressing
anthropogenic CO2 emissions as 13C. If 13C is about 1% of all the C in fossil
fuels (I don't know what % it is - this is just an example)
Dear Jonathan,
It is a logical extension, I believe, in the existing usage in terms such as
"gross_primary_productivity_of_biomass_expressed_as_carbon", for which the help
text states: "The phrase "expressed_as" is used in the construction
A_expressed_as_B, where B is a chemical constituent of
Dear Andrew and John
I hadn't noticed that sea_surface_elevation is already in use as an alias.
That's a pity, but maybe it would be confusing anyway, given John's comment.
I think that what Andrew needs is terms that say how much higher the sea
surface is because of influence X relative to how h
Dear Martin
Thanks for the new proposals.
> gross_primary_productivity_of_biomass_expressed_as_13C
> gross_primary_productivity_of_biomass_expressed_as_14C
These don't seem quite right to me. They imply you can express the *entire* GPP
as kg of 13C or 14C. Does it means the mass of 13C or 14C in
John,
I see where you are with that, but my understanding from Jonathon Gregory's
email earlier is that the 'due_to' part of the phrasing identifies a component
process that contributes to an overall quantity. In the case below
'due_to_storm_surge' is a contribution to 'sea_surface_elevation' a
12 matches
Mail list logo
