Dear Trevor, Paul, et al. > (2) The fact that a model variable drifts should not be a reason to use a > different name for that variable.
I agree with you. I only made that point because you appeared to be giving initialisation to a field of practical salinity as a reason why the quantity was practical salinity. That didn't seem a very robust argument to me, but think your other argument, about the equation of state assuming it to be practical salinity, is a more cogent one. However, as I said, some models are idealised. For instance, I have run HadCM3 with density as a linear function of potential temperature and salinity. I don't think it would be right to say this salinity was practical salinity - it's too otherworldly to be "practical"! I agree with Paul that CMIP models have been initialised from realistic datasets of practical salinity. But CMIP models are only a minority of the models in the world, for which CF may be used. Different applications require different choices of standard name. Best wishes Jonathan _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
