Late to the party. TEOS-10 suggests that archival should be PSS and then that is converted (using TEOS-10) to Absolute Salinity (Sa) for thermo calculations. J.
On 6/2/15 9:23 PM, Lowry, Roy K. wrote: > Hi Craig, > > Supports having the units for sea surface salinity as 0.001. I certainly > don't want sea surface salinity to default to Practical Salinity. > > Cheers, Roy. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Craig Donlon [mailto:craig.don...@esa.int] > Sent: 03 June 2015 08:19 > To: Lowry, Roy K. > Cc: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu; rpawlow...@eos.ubc.ca > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] FW: Salinity units > > Roy > > We have 3 satellites measuring sea surface salinity so we need to be a bit > careful here. > > I believe guidance from CF for his variable will help standardise the > approach space agencies and projects are taking. Certainly not PSU!! > > All the best > Craig > > -- > *** Sent from my iPhone *** > -- > Dr Craig Donlon > Sentinel-3 Mission Scientist, > Principal Scientist for Oceans and Ice > European Space Agency/ESTEC > Keplerlaan 1, 2201 AZ > Noordwijk > The Netherlands > > e: craig.don...@esa.int > t: +31 (0)715 653687 > f: +31 (0)715 655675 > m: +31 (0)627 013244 > Skype: crazit > >> On 3 Jun 2015, at 09:12, Lowry, Roy K. <r...@bodc.ac.uk> wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> As I suspected, the message below indicates a preference by the physical >> oceanographers involved in TEOS-10 to use 0.001 for 'older style' >> salinities. This works for me. All we need to do is to prevent >> semi-intelligent (dumb?) data aggregation systems doing automatic units >> harmonisation on salinity and creating a 3 order of magnitude error. >> Salinity interconversions for data aggregation should be always be done >> using the relevant algorithm. >> >> Sea surface salinity is a real fly in the ointment because it can either be >> a model output field (units 0.001) or an observation, which could either be >> 'older' (pre-78) salinity (units 0.001) or Practical Salinity (units 1). >> Rich Signell's suggestion of discontinuing usage of sea surface salinity is >> something I argued for (but lost) a decade ago and it isn't an argument I >> wish to resurrect because of the risk or re-opening the sea surface >> temperature can of worms. As most sea surface salinity in CF is likely to >> be model output I would suggest keeping 0.001 as the Canonical unit and >> recommending that if it's Practical Salinity then label it as Practical >> Salinity. >> >> Cheers, Roy. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Rich Pawlowicz [mailto:rpawlow...@eos.ubc.ca] >> Sent: 03 June 2015 00:26 >> To: Lowry, Roy K. >> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Salinity units >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Roy - I have to confess I am not entirely sure of the ramifications of >> making changes or how units are modified (by powers of 10, for example) in >> the CF system. I would agree with g/kg >> for units on the TEOS-10 Reference Composition Salinity Scale. I am not >> sure I would use >> the same unit for old-style titration-salinities; keeping 0.001 might >> be best for those >> >> RIch. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jun 2, 2015, at 10:06 AM, Lowry, Roy K. <r...@bodc.ac.uk> wrote: >>> >>> Dear Rich, >>> >>> Do you have any comment on the CF community adopting g/kg as the canonical >>> unit for all forms of salinity other than Practical Salinity? >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Roy Lowry (oceanography domain CF Standards Names Committee member) >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: Signell, Richard [rsign...@usgs.gov] >>> Sent: 02 June 2015 17:27 >>> To: Alison Pamment >>> Cc: CF metadata >>> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Salinity units >>> >>> Nan, Alison, and Co: >>> >>> I agree also. We should use "1" for "practical_salinity", and in the >>> comments say that to estimate other salinity variables such as >>> absolute_salinity, a formula must be used (perhaps such as those >>> provided in the GSW toolbox). >>> >>> And one more thing: I see also that in CF Standard Name table 27 we >>> have "g kg-1" for "absolute_salinity" and "preformed_salinity", but >>> "0.001" for "sea_surface_salinity" and many other salinities. While >>> numerically they are the same, with "0.001" it's not clear whether >>> this is a percentage by mass or volume. Since nobody measures >>> salinity as "ml liter-1", we should specify "g kg-1" for all >>> salinities other than "practical_salinity", right? >>> >>> This would be consistent with: >>> http://www.teos-10.org/pubs/TEOS-10_Manual.pdf. >>> Screenshots here (and attached): >>> http://screencast.com/t/I3COnk3a >>> http://screencast.com/t/Zbk6uLJP643 >>> >>> >>> -Rich >>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 12:22 PM, <alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk> wrote: >>>> Dear Nan, All, >>>> >>>> Reading through what you and Rich saying i.e. that the values are (and >>>> probably always have been) in the range 0-40, then I agree that changing >>>> the canonical unit is not likely to cause problems with existing data, >>>> which was my main concern. In fact, I think using "1" does make more sense >>>> than 1 e-3 if practical salinity is a number on a relative scale rather >>>> than having any direct relation to concentration. So I now support this >>>> change. I will need to put some more thought into the definitions - I'm a >>>> little pushed for time today but will have another think about this >>>> tomorrow. >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> Alison >>>> >>>> ------ >>>> Alison Pamment Tel: +44 1235 778065 >>>> NCAS/Centre for Environmental Data Archival 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 Nan Galbraith >>>>> Sent: 02 June 2015 15:47 >>>>> To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu >>>>> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Salinity units >>>>> >>>>> Hi All - >>>>> >>>>> Can we move on this question? >>>>> >>>>> I think the real problems with the unit .001, as mentioned by >>>>> various people elsewhere in this thread, are that it invites users >>>>> to treat it as a scale factor, or to mistake it for g/kg. >>>>> >>>>> Would it be possible to change canonical units to '1' and to add to >>>>> the definitions a statement that the 'units' field can't be used to >>>>> convey a scale factor, that scaling of data has to be done in >>>>> another field (is it scale_factor?) for dimensionless variables? I >>>>> think this would protect existing datasets from misinterpretation - >>>>> basically making '.001' equivalent to '1' for these data variable. >>>>> >>>>> It seems unlikely that there are existing CF datasets that were >>>>> written using '1' >>>>> as a practical salinity unit, intending it to convey that data >>>>> should be divided by >>>>> 1000 to return to its non-dimensional state. If there are such >>>>> datasets out there, they presumably have the standard name table >>>>> version included somewhere in their metadata - but it would be very >>>>> surprising if the unit has been used this way. >>>>> >>>>> I don't see any down side to making this change, since it moves CF >>>>> closer to the widely-accepted view on PS units, without endangering >>>>> any existing data sets. >>>>> >>>>> OceanSITES is champing at the bit to have this resolved, so I'd >>>>> hate to see us drop the discussion at this point. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers - and thanks - >>>>> Nan >>>>> >>>>>>>> On 5/27/15 1:56 PM, Signell, Richard wrote: >>>>>>>> For all these salinity datasets, the actual data values for salinity >>>>>>>> are in the range of 0-40, not 0.0-0.040. And I don't think people >>>>>>>> want that to change. So the problem is users understanding the >>>>>>>> difference between values of 0-40 that *are not* supposed to be >>>>>>>> used as "g/kg" and values of 0-40 that *are* supposed to be used as >>>>>>>> "g/kg". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 1:11 PM,<alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Dear Nan, All, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Certainly this topic has come up several times and we never >>>>>>>>> seem to >>>>> quite >>>>>>>>> get to a solution that suits everybody. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don’t know why 1e-3 was originally chosen for use in the >>>>>>>>> standard >>>>> name >>>>>>>>> table, but even if you go back to version 1 it is in there, >>>>>>>>> which means it was agreed prior to 2006 when the CF website at PCMDI >>>>>>>>> was set up. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The last time the question of salinity units was aired in >>>>>>>>> detail was >>>>> during >>>>>>>>> the TEOS-10 discussions in 2011. Unfortunately, the mailing >>>>>>>>> list archive seems to be unavailable at the moment, but I can >>>>>>>>> vouch for the fact >>>>> that the >>>>>>>>> current definitions of the salinity names came from the very >>>>>>>>> detailed discussions that we had at that time. In particular, >>>>>>>>> we added the >>>>> following >>>>>>>>> wording to the definition of sea_water_practical_salinity: >>>>>>>>> ‘Practical Salinity, S_P, is defined on the Practical Salinity >>>>>>>>> Scale of 1978 (PSS-78) and is calculated from the electrical >>>>>>>>> conductivity of sea water (as well >>>>> as >>>>>>>>> temperature and pressure). Officially S_P is dimensionless so >>>>>>>>> that, >>>>> while >>>>>>>>> convenient, and while it is common practice, it is not >>>>>>>>> officially >>>>> sanctioned >>>>>>>>> to say S_P = 35 psu. Often authors use PSS-78, as in S_P = 35 >>>>>>>>> PSS-78. If salinity was measured using remote sensing >>>>>>>>> techniques and not >>>>> conductivity, >>>>>>>>> then it is recommended that additional metadata >>>>> (calibration/validation >>>>>>>>> information) be described in the variable comment attribute.’ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Once upon a time (back in 2009) there was a discussion about >>>>>>>>> allowing >>>>> CF to >>>>>>>>> use ‘psu’ as a unit in its own right, but I think the TEOS-10 >>>>>>>>> discussion made it clear that ‘psu’ is not really a unit at >>>>>>>>> all, so that idea was dropped and we continued to use 1e-3. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We should remember that the canonical unit of ‘1e-3’ doesn’t >>>>>>>>> prevent >>>>> anyone >>>>>>>>> using ‘1’ in their files if they prefer it, and vice versa. As >>>>>>>>> Jim has already pointed out, UDunits can certainly cope with >>>>>>>>> that. So in one >>>>> sense, >>>>>>>>> it doesn’t really matter to CF which we choose as the canonical >>>>>>>>> unit as >>>>> long >>>>>>>>> as we can agree and, most importantly, make the definition >>>>>>>>> really >>>>> really >>>>>>>>> clear so that consumers of the files know how to interpret the data. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In previous discussions there has never been unanimous >>>>>>>>> agreement >>>>> about >>>>>>>>> whether it is better to use ‘1e-3’ or ‘1’. My niggling concern >>>>>>>>> about changing the unit after all these years is whether it >>>>>>>>> will lead to misinterpretation of existing data files. Is that going >>>>>>>>> to be a problem? >>>>> We >>>>>>>>> have in the past changed the canonical units of standard names, >>>>>>>>> but >>>>> only to >>>>>>>>> correct outright errors, rather than to change the >>>>>>>>> interpretation of a >>>>> name. >>>>>>>>> How big a problem is it for the oceanographic community if we >>>>>>>>> don’t >>>>> change >>>>>>>>> the unit? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If we do decide to go with ‘1’ as the canonical unit, is there >>>>>>>>> a reference, such as TEOS-10, which we can use to support our >>>>>>>>> decision? It would be useful to include it in the definition >>>>>>>>> and hopefully reduce the need to >>>>> keep >>>>>>>>> revisiting this same question. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Either way, I think we can improve further on the definition to >>>>>>>>> help >>>>> people >>>>>>>>> better understand the data. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Alison >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On >>>>> Behalf Of Nan >>>>>>>>> Galbraith >>>>>>>>> Sent: 27 May 2015 15:45 >>>>>>>>> To: Rich Pawlowicz >>>>>>>>> Cc:cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Salinity units >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi all - >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The '.001' units for P.S. doesn't mean that stored values of >>>>>>>>> practical salinity differs from A.S. by 'a factor of around a >>>>>>>>> 1000', as far as I know. If that's the logical inference, then >>>>>>>>> this unit is really a problem, and maybe we should do something about >>>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I wish my CF email archive went back a little further, because >>>>>>>>> there's nothing (since 2004) that I can find that explains the >>>>>>>>> rationale for this unit. It certainly *looks* like a compromise >>>>>>>>> between a unit for a non-dimensional variable and PPT ... When >>>>>>>>> this was originally under discussion, way back when, I'll bet >>>>>>>>> someone argued that it would >>>>> eventually >>>>>>>>> be a big problem. I'd really love to see that email thread! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cheers - >>>>>>>>> Nan >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 5/26/15 11:52 AM, Rich Pawlowicz wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I’m not sure what the best answer is either, but I think the “correct” >>>>> way >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> to have people deal with Practical Salinity in some special >>>>>>>>> fashion in their workflow, because it *is* defined in a weird >>>>>>>>> way that is generally incompatible with the general idea of >>>>>>>>> ‘quantities with units’) - getting a salinity definition that >>>>>>>>> is aligned with the way all other quantities in the world are >>>>>>>>> defined was one of the motivating factors behind >>>>> TEOS-10! >>>>>>>>> So, essentially people would have to make their own choice >>>>>>>>> about what to do with ‘practical salinity’ for whatever they are >>>>>>>>> doing. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I will point out, though, that having two kinds of data that >>>>>>>>> differ numerically by a factor of around a 1000 is a good way >>>>>>>>> of getting them to realize that they really are not exactly >>>>>>>>> compatible - you wouldn’t *want* Practical Salinity and >>>>>>>>> Absolute salinity on the same plot (“look - salinity increased >>>>>>>>> by 0.16 g/kg everywhere in 2010!”) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But I understand that one might want to make this as painless >>>>>>>>> as possible. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On May 26, 2015, at 8:48 AM, Signell, >>>>>>>>> Richard<rsign...@usgs.gov> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rich, >>>>>>>>> Thanks for this. Yes, I guess my concern is that folks will do a >>>>>>>>> catalog search for *salinity* variables, and with a few spot >>>>>>>>> checks, see that they are have data values in the range of >>>>>>>>> 29-36 or so, and then go ahead and run a workflow that converts all >>>>>>>>> units using the >>>>>>>>> units attribute. And if "practical salinity" has units of "1" and >>>>>>>>> "absolute salinity" has units of "g/kg" = "0.001", then the data might >>>>>>>>> not appear on that fixed y-axis plot with [29 36]. But I don't >>>>>>>>> have a good alternative. I guess we have to rely that people will >>>>>>>>> realize from the standard_names that for comparison, you need >>>>>>>>> to estimate absolute salinity from practical salinity using >>>>>>>>> tools like GSW toolbox. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -Rich >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Rich >>>>> Pawlowicz<rpawlow...@eos.ubc.ca> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ummm…I’m not entirely what you are asking, but >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> a) PSS-78 Practical Salinity is a dimensionless number. It was >>>>>>>>> defined such that "the numerical values of practical salinity >>>>>>>>> would be similar to the numerical values of previous salinity >>>>>>>>> data, when expressed in ‰”, but it isn’t in fact ppt or >>>>>>>>> anything, and you shouldn’t be multiplying it up or down by >>>>>>>>> factors of 1000. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> b) "Previous salinity data”, (Cox or Knudsen salinity) which >>>>>>>>> was obtained from titrations, does in fact represent a mass >>>>>>>>> fraction of something (because you are titrating with a mass of >>>>>>>>> silver). >>>>>>>>> This was denoted by the ppt ‘unit'. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> c) TEOS-10 Absolute Salinity is also a mass fraction (of >>>>>>>>> dissolved solute on the Reference Composition Salinity Scale). >>>>>>>>> However, nowadays the SI brochure suggests that different >>>>>>>>> quantities should be distinguished by their symbols, not their >>>>>>>>> units. So, there isn’t actually a >>>>> recommended >>>>>>>>> unit for Absolute Salinity. You can write >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> S_A = 35 g/kg = 0.035 kg/kg = 35000 mg/kg >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> or, again using SI rules and treating the units as a ‘thing’: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> S_A/(g/kg) = 35 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and any of these are valid - the same way lengths can be in >>>>>>>>> meters or km or mm or whatever is handy (this is also true for >>>>>>>>> preformed salinity). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ‘ppt’ is discouraged as a unit of mass fraction because (for >>>>>>>>> example) it could be confused with ‘part per trillion’ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Now, the gsw toolbox assumes ‘g/kg’ for its TEOS-10 salinity >>>>>>>>> inputs and outputs, but YOU don’t have to do that if you don’t want >>>>>>>>> to. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I admit it is a little magic how we can ESTIMATE Absolute >>>>>>>>> Salinity (with >>>>>>>>> units) from Practical Salinity (without units), but keep in >>>>>>>>> mind that this is only ONE possible way of estimating Absolute >>>>>>>>> Salinity, and in fact it >>>>> is >>>>>>>>> a method that is metrologically somewhat suspect because of the >>>>>>>>> definition of PSS-78. S_A could also be obtained from density >>>>>>>>> measurements, for example - and then there is some other >>>>>>>>> conversion factor involving different units. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rich. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On May 22, 2015, at 1:01 PM, Signell, >>>>>>>>> Richard<rsign...@usgs.gov> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Roy, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For sure dimensionless. But "1.0", "0.001" or "g/kg"? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The latest version (27) of the CF Standard Name list >>>>>>>>> (http://cfconventions.org/Data/cf-standard-names/27/build/cf- >>>>> standard-name-table.html) >>>>>>>>> states: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> sea_water_salinity: "0.001" >>>>>>>>> sea_water_absolute_salinity: "g kg-1" >>>>>>>>> sea_water_practical_salinity: "0.001" >>>>>>>>> sea_water_preformed_salinity: "g kg-1" >>>>>>>>> sea_water_cox_salinity: "0.001" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and units packages, of course, would treat "g kg-1" the same as >>>>>>>>> "0.001". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yet in the IOC manual on equation of seawater: >>>>>>>>> http://www.teos-10.org/pubs/TEOS-10_Manual.pdf >>>>>>>>> it states (PDF page 176, printed page 166) that Practical >>>>>>>>> Salinity should have units of "1", while "Absolute Salinity" >>>>>>>>> (the argument used in the toolbox functions) and "Preformed >>>>>>>>> Salinity" (used in numerical ocean models) should have units "g kg-1". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So it appears that TEOS agrees with CF on units for Absolute >>>>>>>>> Salinity and Preformed Salinity, but not on Practical Salinity. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And OceanSites (as least here: >>>>>>>>> http://www.oceansites.org/docs/OS_PAP-3_201205_P_deepTS.txt) >>>>>>>>> is using "sea_water_practical_salinity" with units of "1", so >>>>>>>>> they are consistent with the TEOS publication, but not the >>>>>>>>> current CF convention (v27). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On the TEOS site, there is software to calculate Absolute Salinity >>>>>>>>> from Practical Salinity. So it would seem that the technically >>>>>>>>> correct thing to do would be to use the "gsw_SA_from_SP" >>>>>>>>> routine to convert OceanSites Practical Salinity (in units of >>>>>>>>> "1") to Absolute Salinity (in units of "g/kg") before comparing >>>>>>>>> with the "Preformed Salinity" output "g/kg" from ocean models. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm pretty confused though, so I'm cc'ing Rich Pawlowicz on >>>>>>>>> this, hoping for his input. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> -Rich >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Lowry, Roy K.<r...@bodc.ac.uk> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dimensionless. Please???? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is the view of physical oceanographers for whom I have the >>>>> greatest >>>>>>>>> respect. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cheers, Roy. >>>>>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> From: Reyna Jenkyns [re...@uvic.ca] >>>>>>>>> Sent: 22 May 2015 18:06 >>>>>>>>> To:cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu; OceanSITES Data Management Team; >>>>> Nan Galbraith >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Salinity units >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm interested in this topic since I didn't realize what had >>>>>>>>> been >>>>> discussed >>>>>>>>> previously, and now I think we must be non-compliant as well. >>>>>>>>> Is this documented formally in the CF documentation? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Reyna Jenkyns | Data Stewardship Team Lead - Digital >>>>>>>>> Infrastructure Ocean Networks Canada | T 250 853 3908 | >>>>>>>>> oceannetworks.ca University of Victoria PO Box 1700 STN CSC >>>>>>>>> 2300 McKenzie Avenue >>>>> Victoria, BC >>>>>>>>> V8W 2Y2 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> From: CF-metadata<cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu> on behalf >>>>>>>>> of >>>>> Nan >>>>>>>>> Galbraith<ngalbra...@whoi.edu> >>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 10:03 AM >>>>>>>>> To:cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu; OceanSITES Data Management Team >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Salinity units >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hello all - >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It's been a long time, but is anyone interested in re-visiting >>>>>>>>> the subject of units for practical salinity in CF? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I was recently notified that my salinity data was likely to be >>>>>>>>> overlooked by some users, because I'd used '1' as the units, >>>>>>>>> not '.001'. Somehow, I'd forgotten the (long-ago) discussion on >>>>>>>>> the CF list about salinity units. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Some members of the OceanSITES project are interested in >>>>>>>>> revising >>>>> our >>>>>>>>> format spec to encourage the use of '1' as an indication that >>>>>>>>> salinity >>>>> does >>>>>>>>> not have units - but, of course, we'd mostly rather remain CF- >>>>> compliant. >>>>>>>>> Thanks for any feedback on this. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cheers - Nan >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 6/17/09 2:48 AM, Lowry, Roy K wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> During an exercise with Alison mapping the CF Standard Names to >>>>>>>>> a units vocabulary in the BODC vocabulary server I noticed that >>>>>>>>> the units for salinity were '1.00E-03', i.e. parts per thousand. >>>>>>>>> My understanding in that since the introduction of the >>>>>>>>> Practical Salinity Scale that salinity is dimensionless with units of >>>>>>>>> '1'. >>>>>>>>> Is there agreement for our changing the units in the Standard >>>>>>>>> Name table? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cheers, Roy. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> ******************************************************* >>>>> * Nan Galbraith Information Systems Specialist * >>>>> * Upper Ocean Processes Group Mail Stop 29 * >>>>> * Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution * >>>>> * Woods Hole, MA 02543 (508) 289-2444 * >>>>> ******************************************************* >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> CF-metadata mailing list >>>>> CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu >>>>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> CF-metadata mailing list >>>> CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu >>>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dr. Richard P. Signell (508) 457-2229 >>> USGS, 384 Woods Hole Rd. >>> Woods Hole, MA 02543-1598 >>> >>> 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. >>> <6-2-2015 12-23-31 PM.png><6-2-2015 12-24-25 PM.png><ATT00002.c> >> -- >> Rich Pawlowicz, Associate Professor, Ocean Dynamics Laboratory Dept. >> of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences, Univ. of British Columbia >> 6339 Stores Rd., Vancouver, B.C. CANADA V6T 1Z4 email:r...@eos.ubc.ca >> web:http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~rich >> ph: (604) 822-1356 fax:(604) 822-6088 >> >> >> >> 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 > This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or > addressees only. > The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole > or in part) of its content is not permitted. > If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it > from your system. > Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender. > > Please consider the environment before printing this email. > > > 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 -- John Helly, University of California, San Diego / San Diego Supercomputer Center / Scripps Institution of Oceanography / 760 840 8660 mobile / stonesteps (Skype) / stonesteps7 (iChat) / http://www.sdsc.edu/~hellyj
<<attachment: hellyj.vcf>>
_______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
