I agree that this is common usage and acceptable as is, but if someone
wants to go to the trouble of adding clarification in the description
that would obviously be nice.
Karl
On 3/8/16 5:47 AM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
Dear Martin
I feel that it's OK. The use of the word "emission" indicates
Hi all,
I, for one, would find Martin's wording an improvement and with the
addition of "subskin" temperature complete (adding "subskin" to one of
Martin's sentences):
"More specific terms, namely sea_surface_skin_temperature,
sea_surface_subskin_temperature, and surface_termperature are av
Dear Martin
I feel that it's OK. The use of the word "emission" indicates the sign
*convention* for the quantity, if it's interpreted as a signed quantity. I
think that is all right because people actually do talk about "negative
emissions" of CO2. If this is the general view, but if it there is c
Hello All,
The CMIP6 data request will, like the CMIP5 data request, include a request for
a variable defined as "Carbon Mass Flux into Atmosphere Due to All
Anthropogenic Emissions of CO2" with CF Standard Name
"tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon_due_to_a
Genius and sounds like a good solution to me.
Regards
Craig
--
*** Sent from my iPhone ***
--
Dr Craig Donlon
Sentinel-3 Mission Scientist,
Principal Scientist for Oceans and Ice
European Space Agency/ESTEC
Keplerlaan 1, 2201 AZ
Noordwijk
The Netherlands
e: craig.don...@esa.int
t: +31 (0)715
Hello All,
Karl has raised an objection to the wording " not the skin " which was
carried over from the current CF Standard Name definition for
sea_surface_temperature in my suggested update. The update is intended to
correct a currently erroneous reference to "surface_temperature" as
