Dear Robert, Many thanks for your email.
I do certainly recall that you and I spoke early last year regarding the possibility of producing a KWIC index for each version of standard names. I’m sorry I wasn’t able to pursue it at the time due to the large number of names that needed to be agreed for CMIP6. However, if you are in a position to produce a KWIC index for more recent versions of the standard name table I would be happy to make them available via the CF website. I agree that the index provides a different way of browsing and comparing standard names and it would be interesting to get other people’s feedback. I don’t (as far as I know) currently have the facility to run a Prolog program, so would need to look into that if we decide that a KWIC index should be generated along with other standard name table versions at the same time as the regular updates. However, that is something I can explore. In the meantime I would need to ask that you generate the KWIC index as you did previously so that I can put it on the website. The next update to standard names is scheduled for next week – it will be published on Wednesday 15th May – I would be happy to add the corresponding KWIC index if you can send it to me. Best wishes, Alison ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alison Pamment Tel: +44 1235 778065 NCAS/Centre for Environmental Data Analysis Email: alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory R25, 2.22 Harwell Oxford, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K. From: CF-metadata <cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu> On Behalf Of MUETZELFELDT Robert Sent: 07 May 2019 19:42 To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Some standard name updates to improve consistency. Dear Jonathan, Martin, Alison and list, Talking about tools for helping to pick up inconsistencies in Standard Names . . . . . About 18 months ago I produced a KWIC index for CF Standard Names (v47). This is in fact linked to from the CF Standard Names Table home page<http://cfconventions.org/standard-names.html>, and can be found at http://cfconventions.org/Data/cf-standard-names/47/kwicindex/kwic_index_for_cf_standard_names_v47.html. It consists of, first, an alphabetic list of all the terms (keywords) found in all Standard Names, followed by the KWIC index itself, i.e. a page-centred list of all keywords, surrounded on either side by the full Standard Name in which it appears. Each page-centred keyword can, and usually does, appear multiple times on successive lines, once for each Standard Name that it appears in. All the terms that appear on either side of the page-centred keyword are in fact links, taking you up or down the KWIC index to where that term is itself the page-centred keyword. The idea is that this makes it very easy to navigate around the full set of Standard Names. It is not really designed for picking up inconsistencies, but I guess that it is one of the tools that could be used to do that. The idea was that I would generate a new KWIC index page for each version of the Standard Names Table, then hand the code (in fact, a Prolog program) over to Alison so that she could do this. Rather embarrassingly, this has not happened. However, if there is sufficient interest in keeping this current, I'd be happy to re-run the program for the current version, then discuss handing the code over. Cheers, Robert On 07/05/2019 18:19, Jonathan Gregory wrote: Dear Martin and Alison Thank you for carefully pursuing this detailed discussion. The degree of consistency which Martin remarked upon initially is encouraging, but it's also evident that we have to work very hard to achieve that, and any tools that we can put in place to make it easier (as Martin is thinking about, I believe) are well worth considering. I have some small points. 1. I've looked into the elemental/black carbon issue briefly ... it may make sense to deal with that in a separate discussion and try to get some relevant experts involved. I agree with that conclusion. 9. I'm still a little uncomfortable with the idea of "ambient_aerosol" referring to the suspension of particles in air. The phrase "ambient_aerosol_particles" is used when we are referring to properties of the particles rather than the suspension This is like the distinction between ocean vs sea_water and atmosphere vs air. I can't think of a meaningful interpretation of a "dry aerosol" (I think dust_dry_aerosol is only used in the form dust_dry_aerosol_particles). We have the following names which mention dry_aerosol without particles: mass_concentration_of_biomass_burning_dry_aerosol_in_air mass_fraction_of_mercury_dry_aerosol_in_air tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_mercury_dry_aerosol_due_to_emission tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_sulfate_dry_aerosol_expressed_as_sulfur_due_to_wet_deposition For "relative_humidity_for_aerosol_particle_size_selection", I recognise that this would be the only use of "particle" in the singular. This is a minor concern, but to avoid introducing it in the singular we could write relative_humidity_for_size_selection_of_aerosol_particles - that might be easier to read as well. I suggest we add 'A positive radiative forcing or radiative effect is equivalent to a downward radiative flux and contributes to a warming of the earth system.' I agree that for the sake of clarity it would be good to add this. It's consistent with literature, as you say, and also with the IPCC AR5 glossary, which says, "Radiative forcing is the change in the net, downward minus upward, radiative flux ...". Best wishes Jonathan _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata -- -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
_______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
