Re: [CF-metadata] new standard name proposal for total ozone in DU
Dear Martin Philip also raises a good point with respect to alias names: has it been stated clearly that they must refer to exactly the same quantity? I believe they should, because if we allow trivial unit conversions to count as aliases, then even wavelength and frequency could be considered of aliases, which surely no one would want. It does not say explicitly in your terms, but the convention (Appendix B) implies that the alias has the same definition as the quantity of which it is an alias, which I would say means it is exactly the same quantity. As Philip says, these quantities cannot be the same because they have different physical dimensions, even though the values may be numerically equal. I tend to think it should be sufficient to point out the alternative in the definition of each of these quantities (the one in mm and the one in mol m-2). Deprecation of a quantity would be a step further than CF usually takes. CF provides metadata for things people want to describe, rather than prescribing which things they ought to describe. Best wishes Jonathan ___ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Re: [CF-metadata] new standard name proposal for total ozone in DU
Hi Jonathan, Martin, et al., Although Mass-Moles and frequency-period are examples of pairs of physically different units that are trivially convertible, DU is subtly different because it is defined in two physically different but equivalent ways. My preference is to add an additional comment to the notes for both std_names that recommends using the new std_name for consistency with other std_names, but would also happily live with the other two options (ie, either deprecating the old std_name, or expressing no preference). Best wishes, Philip --- Dr Philip Cameron-Smith, p...@llnl.gov, Lawrence Livermore National Lab. --- -Original Message- From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Gregory Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 5:31 AM To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] new standard name proposal for total ozone in DU Dear Martin Philip also raises a good point with respect to alias names: has it been stated clearly that they must refer to exactly the same quantity? I believe they should, because if we allow trivial unit conversions to count as aliases, then even wavelength and frequency could be considered of aliases, which surely no one would want. It does not say explicitly in your terms, but the convention (Appendix B) implies that the alias has the same definition as the quantity of which it is an alias, which I would say means it is exactly the same quantity. As Philip says, these quantities cannot be the same because they have different physical dimensions, even though the values may be numerically equal. I tend to think it should be sufficient to point out the alternative in the definition of each of these quantities (the one in mm and the one in mol m-2). Deprecation of a quantity would be a step further than CF usually takes. CF provides metadata for things people want to describe, rather than prescribing which things they ought to describe. Best wishes Jonathan ___ 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
Re: [CF-metadata] new standard name proposal for total ozone in DU
Hi Alison and Roy, I think that the solution you proposed is suitable to the O3 community. Having the canonical unit (mol/m-2) for the O3 columns in the vocabulary server is fine as long as it is not a problem to use a different unit (Dobson Unit) in the NetCDF files. The important point is that the variables are expressed in the commonly used units so that the users can understand the file content at a glance. Best regards, Christophe On 5/12/2012 11:30, alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk wrote: Dear Roy and Christophe, As Roy says, we usually use SI units for the canonical unit in the standard name table. There are a few exceptions, for example, age_of_sea_ice has units of year and age_of_surface_snow has units of day, whereas the SI unit for both quantities would be the second. Also, we allowed some of the recently added salinity names to have canonical units of g kg-1 which I'm not sure adheres strictly to SI. I think the reason for having the exceptions was simply that they are the units that are always used with the named quantities. For Christophe's ozone name, atmosphere_mole_content_of_ozone, the proposed definition is ' Content indicates a quantity per unit area. The atmosphere content of a quantity refers to the vertical integral from the surface to the top of the atmosphere. For the content between specified levels in the atmosphere, standard names including content_of_atmosphere_layer are used. The construction atmosphere_mole_content_of_X means the vertically integrated number of moles of X above a unit area. The chemical formula for ozone is O3.' Whatever we decide about the units, I think we should add the sentence 'atmosphere_mole_content_of_ozone is usually measured in Dobson Units which are equivalent to 446.2 micromoles m-2'. Roy's proposed solution of having canonical units of mol m-2 while using Dobson Units in the data files is certainly consistent with the CF conventions. As long as UDUNITS knows how to convert the units in the file to the canonical units there is no problem. Christophe, would that be acceptable to the ozone community? Roy, is there any technical reason why we couldn't map to Dobson Units in the vocabulary server if that were the preferred solution? Best wishes, Alison -- Alison Pamment Tel: +44 1235 778065 NCAS/British Atmospheric Data CentreEmail: alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory R25, 2.22 Harwell Oxford, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K. -Original Message- From: Lowry, Roy K. [mailto:r...@bodc.ac.uk] Sent: 04 December 2012 10:23 To: Christophe Lerot Cc: Pamment, Alison (STFC,RAL,RALSP); cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu Subject: RE: [CF-metadata] new standard name proposal for total ozone in DU Hello Cristophe, To be absolutely clear, I'm saying the data should be stored in the NetCDF in Dobson Units, that the units parameter attribute in the NetCDF file should be Dobson Units, but that the canonical unit in the Standard Names List and therefore the units mapped in our server should be moles per square metre. Cheers, Roy. From: Christophe Lerot [christophe.le...@aeronomie.be] Sent: 04 December 2012 10:20 To: Lowry, Roy K. Cc: alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] new standard name proposal for total ozone in DU 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 CentreEmail: 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
Re: [CF-metadata] new standard name proposal for total ozone in DU
Hi All, After considerable thought, I do support addition of this std_name, but recommend that we add a comment to the description (as described below). The problem is that atmosphere_mole_content_of_ozone (proposed, units = moles/m2, typically expressed in DU) and equivalent_thickness_at_stp_of_atmosphere_ozone_content (already in CF, units = m, typically expressed in DU) are essentially the same. Although they have nominally different units, the usual unit used in both cases is Dobson Units (DU). 1 DU was originally defined as 10 micrometers of ozone at STP (ie a unit of distance), but can equivalently defined as 446.2... micromoles/m2 (ie, related to 'moles/m2'), see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobson_unit. The conversion is trivially done through the ideal gas law. A user putting ozone column data into CF is just as likely to use one std_name as the other, and use DU for the units in either case. It would be appropriate to compare the data directly (with no unit conversion if both are put in as DU). Hence, different datasets may contain the same data using different std_names, which isn't ideal. On the other hand, the official units are different, and we have a related issue where we have separate std_names for quantities in 'moles' and 'mass', which are often trivial to convert between in many cases. If these were the only aspects to consider then I would be against the new std_name. However, there are many more species than ozone, and ozone is the only one that I see expressed as equivalent thickness. This means that we will surely end up wanting atmosphere_mole_content for other species, so it makes sense to have it for ozone too. For me, this tips the balance in favor of accepting the proposed std_name. Unfortunately, I don't think we can mitigate the problems using an alias because the std_names have different official units. Hence, I propose that we simply add a note at the end of the descriptions for atmosphere_mole_content_of_ozone and equivalent_thickness_at_stp_of_atmosphere_ozone_content alerting users to the existence of the other std_name: Note: Ozone columns can be stored in either equivalent_thickness_at_stp_of_atmosphere_ozone_content or atmosphere_mole_content_of_ozone. Best wishes, Philip --- Dr Philip Cameron-Smith, p...@llnl.gov, Lawrence Livermore National Lab. --- -Original Message- From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 5:33 AM To: christophe.le...@aeronomie.be Cc: victoria.benn...@stfc.ac.uk; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] new standard name proposal for total ozone in DU Dear Christophe and Roy, Thank you for the discussion; I think we are agreed! The name will go into the standard name table as follows: atmosphere_mole_content_of_ozone; mol m-2 Definition: ' Content indicates a quantity per unit area. The atmosphere content of a quantity refers to the vertical integral from the surface to the top of the atmosphere. For the content between specified levels in the atmosphere, standard names including content_of_atmosphere_layer are used. The construction atmosphere_mole_content_of_X means the vertically integrated number of moles of X above a unit area. The chemical formula for ozone is O3. atmosphere_mole_content_of_ozone is usually measured in Dobson Units (DU) which are equivalent to 446.2 micromoles m-2.' This name is accepted for inclusion in the standard name table and will be added at the next update. Best wishes, Alison -- Alison Pamment Tel: +44 1235 778065 NCAS/British Atmospheric Data CentreEmail: alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory R25, 2.22 Harwell Oxford, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K. -Original Message- From: Christophe Lerot [mailto:christophe.le...@aeronomie.be] Sent: 06 December 2012 12:48 To: Pamment, Alison (STFC,RAL,RALSP) Cc: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] new standard name proposal for total ozone in DU Hi Alison and Roy, I think that the solution you proposed is suitable to the O3 community. Having the canonical unit (mol/m-2) for the O3 columns in the vocabulary server is fine as long as it is not a problem to use a different unit (Dobson Unit) in the NetCDF files. The important point is that the variables are expressed in the commonly used units so that the users can understand the file content at a glance. Best regards, Christophe On 5/12/2012 11:30, alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk wrote: Dear Roy and Christophe, As Roy says, we usually use SI units for the canonical unit in the standard name table. There are a few exceptions, for example, age_of_sea_ice has
Re: [CF-metadata] new standard name proposal for total ozone in DU
Dear all, I would also like to support this proposal. And I thank Philip for his careful thinking. If these were the only aspects to consider then I would be against the new std_name. However, there are many more species than ozone, and ozone is the only one that I see expressed as equivalent thickness. This means that we will surely end up wanting atmosphere_mole_content for other species, so it makes sense to have it for ozone too. For me, this tips the balance in favor of accepting the proposed std_name. Wouldn't this even call for recommending the use of atmosphere_mole_content as preferred option? Since both quantities are essentially the same and both are reported in DU, it will be merely a naming thing in practice. The advantage being that it will be easier for outsiders to understand that an atmosphere_mole_content of ozone is the same concept as an atmosphere_mole_content of some other species, whereas this gets lost if the default for ozone is equivalent_thickness_at_stp_of_atmosphere_ozone_content while all other compounds use atmosphere_mole_content. Should we even go as far as to deprecate the use of equivalent_thickness_at_stp_of_atmosphere_ozone_content? Philip also raises a good point with respect to alias names: has it been stated clearly that they must refer to exactly the same quantity? I believe they should, because if we allow trivial unit conversions to count as aliases, then even wavelength and frequency could be considered of aliases, which surely no one would want. Best regards, Martin Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 23:41:16 + From: Cameron-smith, Philip cameronsmi...@llnl.gov To: alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk, christophe.le...@aeronomie.be christophe.le...@aeronomie.be Cc: victoria.benn...@stfc.ac.uk victoria.benn...@stfc.ac.uk, cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] new standard name proposal for total ozone in DU Message-ID: 298f51abd432da4288ce6b8c469a2afc338...@prdexmbx-04.the-lab.llnl.gov Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi All, After considerable thought, I do support addition of this std_name, but recommend that we add a comment to the description (as described below). The problem is that atmosphere_mole_content_of_ozone (proposed, units = moles/m2, typically expressed in DU) and equivalent_thickness_at_stp_of_atmosphere_ozone_content (already in CF, units = m, typically expressed in DU) are essentially the same. Although they have nominally different units, the usual unit used in both cases is Dobson Units (DU). 1 DU was originally defined as 10 micrometers of ozone at STP (ie a unit of distance), but can equivalently defined as 446.2... micromoles/m2 (ie, related to 'moles/m2'), see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobson_unit. The conversion is trivially done through the ideal gas law. A user putting ozone column data into CF is just as likely to use one std_name as the other, and use DU for the units in either case. It would be appropriate to compare the data directly (with no unit conversion if both are put in as DU). Hence, different datasets may contain the same data using different std_names, which isn't ideal. On the other hand, the official units are different, and we have a related issue where we have separate std_names for quantities in 'moles' and 'mass', which are often trivial to convert between in many cases. If these were the only aspects to consider then I would be against the new std_name. However, there are many more species than ozone, and ozone is the only one that I see expressed as equivalent thickness. This means that we will surely end up wanting atmosphere_mole_content for other species, so it makes sense to have it for ozone too. For me, this tips the balance in favor of accepting the proposed std_name. Unfortunately, I don't think we can mitigate the problems using an alias because the std_names have different official units. Hence, I propose that we simply add a note at the end of the descriptions for atmosphere_mole_content_of_ozone and equivalent_thickness_at_stp_of_atmosphere_ozone_content alerting users to the existence of the other std_name: Note: Ozone columns can be stored in either equivalent_thickness_at_stp_of_atmosphere_ozone_content or atmosphere_mole_content_of_ozone. Best wishes, Philip --- Dr Philip Cameron-Smith, p...@llnl.gov, Lawrence Livermore National Lab. --- Forschungszentrum Juelich GmbH 52425 Juelich Sitz der Gesellschaft: Juelich Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Dueren Nr. HR B 3498
Re: [CF-metadata] new standard name proposal for total ozone in DU
Dear Roy and Christophe, As Roy says, we usually use SI units for the canonical unit in the standard name table. There are a few exceptions, for example, age_of_sea_ice has units of year and age_of_surface_snow has units of day, whereas the SI unit for both quantities would be the second. Also, we allowed some of the recently added salinity names to have canonical units of g kg-1 which I'm not sure adheres strictly to SI. I think the reason for having the exceptions was simply that they are the units that are always used with the named quantities. For Christophe's ozone name, atmosphere_mole_content_of_ozone, the proposed definition is ' Content indicates a quantity per unit area. The atmosphere content of a quantity refers to the vertical integral from the surface to the top of the atmosphere. For the content between specified levels in the atmosphere, standard names including content_of_atmosphere_layer are used. The construction atmosphere_mole_content_of_X means the vertically integrated number of moles of X above a unit area. The chemical formula for ozone is O3.' Whatever we decide about the units, I think we should add the sentence 'atmosphere_mole_content_of_ozone is usually measured in Dobson Units which are equivalent to 446.2 micromoles m-2'. Roy's proposed solution of having canonical units of mol m-2 while using Dobson Units in the data files is certainly consistent with the CF conventions. As long as UDUNITS knows how to convert the units in the file to the canonical units there is no problem. Christophe, would that be acceptable to the ozone community? Roy, is there any technical reason why we couldn't map to Dobson Units in the vocabulary server if that were the preferred solution? Best wishes, Alison -- Alison Pamment Tel: +44 1235 778065 NCAS/British Atmospheric Data CentreEmail: alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory R25, 2.22 Harwell Oxford, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K. -Original Message- From: Lowry, Roy K. [mailto:r...@bodc.ac.uk] Sent: 04 December 2012 10:23 To: Christophe Lerot Cc: Pamment, Alison (STFC,RAL,RALSP); cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu Subject: RE: [CF-metadata] new standard name proposal for total ozone in DU Hello Cristophe, To be absolutely clear, I'm saying the data should be stored in the NetCDF in Dobson Units, that the units parameter attribute in the NetCDF file should be Dobson Units, but that the canonical unit in the Standard Names List and therefore the units mapped in our server should be moles per square metre. Cheers, Roy. From: Christophe Lerot [christophe.le...@aeronomie.be] Sent: 04 December 2012 10:20 To: Lowry, Roy K. Cc: alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] new standard name proposal for total ozone in DU 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 CentreEmail: 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
Re: [CF-metadata] new standard name proposal for total ozone in DU
Hi Alison, A technical solution could be found, but I would be more comfortable with a universally understandable canonical unit that didn't enforce a particular scaling. Cheers, Roy. Please note that I now work part-time from Tuesday to Thursday. E-mail response on other days is possible but not guaranteed! -Original Message- From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk Sent: 05 December 2012 10:30 To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] new standard name proposal for total ozone in DU Dear Roy and Christophe, As Roy says, we usually use SI units for the canonical unit in the standard name table. There are a few exceptions, for example, age_of_sea_ice has units of year and age_of_surface_snow has units of day, whereas the SI unit for both quantities would be the second. Also, we allowed some of the recently added salinity names to have canonical units of g kg-1 which I'm not sure adheres strictly to SI. I think the reason for having the exceptions was simply that they are the units that are always used with the named quantities. For Christophe's ozone name, atmosphere_mole_content_of_ozone, the proposed definition is ' Content indicates a quantity per unit area. The atmosphere content of a quantity refers to the vertical integral from the surface to the top of the atmosphere. For the content between specified levels in the atmosphere, standard names including content_of_atmosphere_layer are used. The construction atmosphere_mole_content_of_X means the vertically integrated number of moles of X above a unit area. The chemical formula for ozone is O3.' Whatever we decide about the units, I think we should add the sentence 'atmosphere_mole_content_of_ozone is usually measured in Dobson Units which are equivalent to 446.2 micromoles m-2'. Roy's proposed solution of having canonical units of mol m-2 while using Dobson Units in the data files is certainly consistent with the CF conventions. As long as UDUNITS knows how to convert the units in the file to the canonical units there is no problem. Christophe, would that be acceptable to the ozone community? Roy, is there any technical reason why we couldn't map to Dobson Units in the vocabulary server if that were the preferred solution? Best wishes, Alison -- Alison Pamment Tel: +44 1235 778065 NCAS/British Atmospheric Data CentreEmail: alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory R25, 2.22 Harwell Oxford, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K. -Original Message- From: Lowry, Roy K. [mailto:r...@bodc.ac.uk] Sent: 04 December 2012 10:23 To: Christophe Lerot Cc: Pamment, Alison (STFC,RAL,RALSP); cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu Subject: RE: [CF-metadata] new standard name proposal for total ozone in DU Hello Cristophe, To be absolutely clear, I'm saying the data should be stored in the NetCDF in Dobson Units, that the units parameter attribute in the NetCDF file should be Dobson Units, but that the canonical unit in the Standard Names List and therefore the units mapped in our server should be moles per square metre. Cheers, Roy. From: Christophe Lerot [christophe.le...@aeronomie.be] Sent: 04 December 2012 10:20 To: Lowry, Roy K. Cc: alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] new standard name proposal for total ozone in DU 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 CentreEmail: alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk STFC Rutherford Appleton
Re: [CF-metadata] new standard name proposal for total ozone in DU
Hello Cristophe, To be absolutely clear, I'm saying the data should be stored in the NetCDF in Dobson Units, that the units parameter attribute in the NetCDF file should be Dobson Units, but that the canonical unit in the Standard Names List and therefore the units mapped in our server should be moles per square metre. Cheers, Roy. From: Christophe Lerot [christophe.le...@aeronomie.be] Sent: 04 December 2012 10:20 To: Lowry, Roy K. Cc: alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] new standard name proposal for total ozone in DU 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 CentreEmail: 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/ - 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
Re: [CF-metadata] new standard name proposal for total ozone in DU
Dear Roy, Thank you very much for the clarification. Christophe On 4/12/2012 11:23, Lowry, Roy K. wrote: Hello Cristophe, To be absolutely clear, I'm saying the data should be stored in the NetCDF in Dobson Units, that the units parameter attribute in the NetCDF file should be Dobson Units, but that the canonical unit in the Standard Names List and therefore the units mapped in our server should be moles per square metre. Cheers, Roy. From: Christophe Lerot [christophe.le...@aeronomie.be] Sent: 04 December 2012 10:20 To: Lowry, Roy K. Cc: alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] new standard name proposal for total ozone in DU 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 CentreEmail: 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/ - 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. -- - 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
