This seems eminently sensible to me. I particularly like the
clarification you suggest in the second point.
When edits are made to abolish the "standard" calendar, I would suggest
including a footnote about what it used to mean, to spare users of old
data the need to go hunting through old versio
Dear Jonathan,
My oh my, this is bound to generate lots of opinions. I do recall the
original discussion conclusion that although "flux density" was the
proper name, we'd be lax in this case and go with common usage, "flux".
An argument against the common usage is that if we want to define th
Judith,
I wasn't trying to imply that radiance and irradiance were the same.
Just that one is in use, so I don't see a strong reason for the other to
be excluded. If you are good with what Jonathan has proposed, then I am
OK with them too. I was trying to champion an alternative viewpoint on
Hi.
I've looked at definitions of terms and such in a few different sources,
and I'd like to suggest these standard names and definitions. I'll
explain reasons after.
solar_irradiance_at_1au (W m-2) defined as:
"Solar" means originating from the Sun. 'Irradiance' means the flux of
radiant en
Dear all
In connection with the radiative flux from the sun, the question has come up
of whether we should use the phrase flux_density for a flux per unit area in
all the standard names which currently have the word "flux". This would be
correct in physical terminology, but years ago we chose to u
Dear Peter and Judith
We are all specialists in our own fields. I didn't mean to imply that your
field is any more or less esoteric! I was just making the point that standard
name are often not the terms customarily employed. They aim to be more self-
explanatory for a wide range of disciplines. A
Dear all,
I have not followed all the arguments over the last few weeks, but the
summary below seems sensible to me. I don't think it will cause
significant harm to eliminate "standard" calendar as an option and
restricte the "gregorian" calendar to be one without leap seconds.
best regards
Dear Jim
I think I completely agree with what you have written here! Thanks. Therefore
I wonder what we are discussing now, and like Chris I'm unsure of the status
of the proposal. So I will take the liberty of repeating the essential
points of what I have suggested before, and if you disagree wit
Hi John,
The reason I didn't jump to respond to Alison's suggested change is that I
viewed it as a correction of a typo that hadn't been spotted rather than a
redefinition. In my book PAR (photosynthetically active radiation) - the
wavelengths that may be utilised by plants for photosynthesis
