Dear Jonathan,
Regarding "dry": When we provide the total particle mass or the
particle size distribution, it is important to distinguish between
dry and wet particle condition. When we provide the mass of one
species (independent of the particle size) it does not matter
whether we consider dry
Dear Roy and Jonathan,
should I split the volcanic ash and radioactive partcles proposal? It
seems like ash is easily accepted, while radioactivity needs some
discussions.
I will here with our experts if radioactivity can replace activity, or
if this is ambiguous in the nuclear community.
Concer
Dear Daniel
> >>Is it feasible to rename all affected standard names?
> >It would be feasible (using aliases) but is it necessary? It seems to me that
> >your question has identified that there should be a distinction between e.g.
> > mass_concentration_of_particulate_X_in_air
> >and
> > mass_
Hi Heiko,
Check with Alison to see if you need to do anything to prevent the volcanic ash
proposal becoming blocked.
There are more possible isotopes than I intuitively expected, but as CF
philosophy is only to generate Standard Names on an 'as needed' basis the
numbers should be manageable. H
Dear Jonathan,
> I understand. That's tricky, [...]
Yes :-) .
> We could define apple to mean orange in
> future, for the sake of the existing datasets,
> but only if we are certain that no-one will
> ever want to talk about apples.
I am not aware of any situation in which someone actually me
Dear Daniel
OK. If experts are unanimous in their conviction that the existing names will
never be needed for the meaning that they appear to have, I agree that they
should become aliases of the new names, which convey the correct meaning.
I'm sure this change could be made. Alison Pamment is in c
Dear Heiko and Roy
I am happy to agree with you that we should retain the radioactive species in
the standard names, given (a) the number is not huge and as Roy said they would
be added only as needed, (b) the distinction between these species and other
chemical species is blurred, (c) there is no
On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 12:24 PM, V Balaji - NOAA Affiliate <
v.bal...@noaa.gov> wrote:
> I would not recommend UGRID for non-standard but structured (e.g logically
> rectangular) grids.
nor would I.
> I'm not aware of anyone planning to turn in data on a completely
> unstructured grid in CMIP
Dear Jonathan,
OK. If experts are unanimous in their conviction that the existing names will
never be needed for the meaning that they appear to have, I agree that they
should become aliases of the new names, which convey the correct meaning.
I'm sure this change could be made.
Great.
Alison
