Dear Roy,

Do you mean that the total ozone values should be given in moles per square metre in the NetCDF files themselves? Or do you mean that I should simply add a specific comment in the unit parameter attribute to make clear that the values are provided in Dobson Unit? The Dobson Unit is quite common for total ozone users and I'd prefer to stay with this unit if possible.

Cheers,
Christophe

On 3/12/2012 15:39, Lowry, Roy K. wrote:
Hello Alison,

Surely the canonical unit for Dobson Units would be moles per square metre, 
with Dobson Units appearing as the scaled unit in the units parameter 
attribute. Making Dobson Units the canonical unit would be like having cm/s 
rather than m/s as a canonical unit.

Cheers, Roy.
________________________________________
From: CF-metadata [cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of 
alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk [alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk]
Sent: 03 December 2012 14:18
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] new standard name proposal for total ozone in DU

Dear Christophe and Jonathan,

I also support this proposal. We don't currently have any standard names that 
use Dobson Units - I think UDUnits1 didn't support it. However, since it is 
defined in UDunits2 I don't see any problem with adding it.

Best wishes,
Alison

------
Alison Pamment                          Tel: +44 1235 778065
NCAS/British Atmospheric Data Centre    Email: alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk
STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
R25, 2.22
Harwell Oxford, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.



-----Original Message-----
From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf
Of Jonathan Gregory
Sent: 27 November 2012 20:52
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: [CF-metadata] new standard name proposal for total ozone in DU

Dear Christophe

So I'd like to propose the following variable name for total ozone
columns based on recommendations I was given:
- "atmosphere_mole_content_of_ozone" expressed in Dobson Units.
Dobson Unit (DU) is already defined in the UDUNIT package ans is
equivalent to 446.2 micromoles m-2.
This seems fine to me. It is consistent in construction with existing
names
for a quantity in mol m-2.

Best wishes

Jonathan
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
--
Scanned by iCritical.
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata

This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject 
to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any 
reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under 
the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic records 
management system.
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata

--
-----------------------------------------------------
Dr. Christophe LEROT
Belgian Institute for Space Aeronomy
Chemistry & Physics of Atmospheres
Avenue circulaire, 3
1180 Brussels
Belgium
phone:  +32/(0)2-3730-407
mobile: +32/(0)472-81.87.00
mail:   christophe.le...@aeronomie.be
url:    http://uv-vis.aeronomie.be/
-----------------------------------------------------



_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata

Reply via email to