Hi All,
I try to keep my eye on how we will be able to create a vocabulary and grammar
for std_names in the future, and I think the current construct
(due_to_emission_from_source) is the best in this regard.
If only we could move in that direction more quickly.
Yours truly,
Philip
Hi All,
This is why I like that Martin is proposing
tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_. We can then grapple with the
challenge of emission height if/when it becomes necessary to make the
distinction.
Best wishes,
Philip
--
Hi All,
While working through recent std_name proposals for radiative transfer
quantities, I encountered what appear to me to be duplicate vocabulary within
the existing std_name list for a couple of terms:
1) _attentuation_ and _extinction_ appear to have the same physical meaning,
although t
Hi All,
I have a few concerns.
1) Normally std_names are for quantities which both models and observations try
to calculate/measure. What is being proposed here is a std_name that includes
the method of calculation/measurement. Such std_names have long been
controversial, so there is usually
Hi Markus,
Thanks for taking on this task :-).
Some general comments:
1) There is no mention of frequency in your definitions. This is true for some
of the existing std_name definitions too. However, I note that the description
of some of the existing std_names (eg
atmosphere_absorption_opt
Mike,
Here's my critique. You may not have options about some of this (I
don't know what constraints the GOES-R program has placed on you), but I
thought I would just tell you what I think.
The first thing that I noticed about this layout (schema, whatever term
you prefer) is that you don't
Hi Uma,
thanks for your interest!
The type of observations I'm concerned with are not only aerosol optical depth
(AOD) as column integrated property, but also ground-based in-situ observations
of particle size distribution, scattering and absorption coefficient that are
representative for the
