Dear Philip > 1) _attentuation_ and _extinction_ appear to have the same physical meaning, > although the comments note that attenuation is more commonly used for radar > and extinction is more commonly used for visible light. The number of > std_names using each of them is 2 and 1, respectively, so it should be easy > to fix with aliases. > 2) _backscattering_ and _backwards_scattering_ also appear to have the same > definition. The number of std_names using each of them is 1 and 4, > respectively, so it should be easy to fix with aliases. Although it is less > common, I prefer _backscattering_ because it is a single word, and will > generalize better to _forwardscattering_.
These are good points and I tend to agree with you. I am not an expert and if there is a distinction someone will point it out, I hope. If there is no distinction, the reason for the different choices would be because of what is generally said, or from personal preference, I presume. It's a difficult balance between making standard names use familiar terms, or making them use consistent terms, but I would prefer consistency if it is still obviously comprehensible to an expert. Regarding the Mie scattering proposal, again I am not an expert on the science, but I would comment that X_assuming_Y is generally used to indicate what X would be in some hypothetical situation of assuming_Y e.g. surface_albedo_assuming_no_snow which is not, in general, the same as surface_albedo as it truly is (although it is often the same). It does not indicate a method of calculating X and, as you say, we keep that out of standard names, because in principle a method of measurement should not affect the definition of the quantity being measured. Best wishes Jonathan _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
