Ok can I request the new standard names:
sea_water_salinity_change
sea_water_temperature_change
sea_water_potential_temperature_change
sea_water_density_change
I'd also note that in the current version of the standard names table there are
the following entries (amongst others) which, to me, ap
On 04/13/2011 02:25 PM, John Caron wrote:
> the point im trying to make is that it would be better to understand
> that "mol mol-1" (canonical udunit = 1) is not the same as "m3 m-3"
> (canonical udunit = 1).
In my opinion, the distinction between "mol/mol" and "m3/m3" is better
indicated by the
On 4/13/2011 9:24 AM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> I do sympathize with people who prefer to read "nmol mol-1" on a plot rather than "1"
(or "1.e-9" in this case).
Since nmol mol-1 is equal to 1e-9, there is no problem with using it as units
in a CF file. It is udunits-compliant. It could even be
Recently, there was added a standard name to define water level
referenced to an atrbitrary vertical datum:
water_surface_height_above_reference_datum
I'd like to propose that a new standard name be created to indicate the
sea floor depth to an arbitrary datum. Something along the lines of
I appreciate everyones's responses. I believe I have 2 of my 4 implied
questions answered sufficiently. That is, a standard_name for water level
which includes the concept of a non-geoid datum and an acceptable way to
define a vertical datum.
One of my remaining questions would be, where t
Dear Paul
You have raised two issues.
* Preference for X_change to change_in_X.
* Suggestion that any X could have _change suffixed without being approved as
a new standard name.
I think the first doesn't have a clear answer. It's a bit arbitrary. I would
say that change_in is probably clearer,
Dear Justin
> Specifically, I'm trying to make sure that its clear that the "z"
> (bathy/topo) and "eta" (water level) are being expressed relative to
> either NGVD29 or NAVD88...currently the "CF Standard Names" for
> "sea_surface_height*" mention only mean water level, geoid or
> ellipsoid...non
Dear Martin
>if this is the direction to take, then we will need several "expressed_as"
> standard_names for atmospheric chemistry. Typical example: volatile organic
> compounds are often "expressed as" mass mixing ratio based on either their
> molecular mass or in "grams C" which counts on
Hi Jonathan,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.As you may be aware, a group of us are
in the process of bringing a snapshot of the CF conventions into the OGC
standards process. We'd like to include the discrete point sampling
conventions if possible, so we have to be careful to get the timing
Dear Ben
> Several times recently, it has come up that proposed additions to cf have
> not been adopted. I am curious as to what marks the final adoption of a
> proposed change or addition to the cf conventions. It seems to work pretty
> well for new additions to the standard names table, but p
10 matches
Mail list logo
