Dear John,
I think the primary defining characteristic is the 3-way partitioning of water
into liquid, vapor and solid phases. The existing CF standard names referring
to liquid and vapor phases (e.g. cloud_liquid_water_mixing_ratio,
rainfall_flux, atmosphere_moles_of_water_vapor, humidity_mix
Dear All,
Here is an initial batch of 8 Standard Names to support the CF taxon dimension.
Two are dimension labels whilst the other six are measurements to which the
taxon is a co-ordinate. Five of these are to cover Daniel's proposal that
prompted the resurrection of Ticket 99.
I've present
Dear list,
any more comments? can we move forward and agree on these new standard names?
thanks
/Sébastien
- Original Message -
> From: "Jonathan Gregory"
> To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
> Sent: Wednesday, 11 April, 2018 18:32:30
> Subject: [CF-metadata] how to use ocean_mixed_layer_thic
Hi all,
Just to summarize some of what has been said before
I think it is pretty clear that the solid phase can take several forms,
as Martin points out. I think the more subtle issue is that frozen
water is not quite the same as solid water, if we take the strict
definition of freezing
Dear Jonathan, Roy and Karl,
thank you for your valuable inputs.
I am not very fond of the cell_method solution: I am already very reluctant
using it because it is not controlled vocabulary and it is a nightmare to parse
to extract valuable metadata automatically. Now that I am discovering that
Dear all,
I am wary of a "slippery slope" if every calculation performed on a
quantity results in a new standard name for that quantity. We have
tried to avoid that in most cases by use of the cell methods, bounds,
and climatology attributes. Isn't there some way to accommodate this in
a mo
Hi Karl,
I tend to agree that this solution is far from ideal.
The core issue is that there is no clear separation between a parameter
(diagnostic quantities, observables, coordinates etc.) and what you do with it
in CF: everything is squeezed in the standard name and in the cell_method (in a
