Hi Martin,
I see your point. The tendency definition certainly argues for negative
values for sedimentation and a change of "Loss to sediments" to something
like "Tendency with respect to sedimentation" for consistency.
Cheers, John
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 5:05 AM, Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC <
ma
Hi Matthias,
I'm going to have to go with in-situ, unless someone can correct me
otherwise. I'm 86.33% confident, however. I have been looking at Jim
Orr's documentation (
http://www.geosci-model-dev-discuss.net/gmd-2016-155/gmd-2016-155.pdf), and
it cites:
Dickson, A. G., Sabine, C. L., and Ch
rwell Campus, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: James Orr [mailto:james@lsce.ipsl.fr]
> > Sent: 18 May 2017 07:47
> > To: John Dunne - NOAA Federal
> > Cc: Durack, Paul J.; Pamment, Alison (STFC,RAL,RALSP); cf-
> > m
>
> --
> Alison Pamment
> Tel: +44 1235 778065
> Centre for Environmental Data Analysis Email:
> alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk
> STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> R25, 2.22
> Harwell Campus, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
>
>
> From
o the measurement made by the standard colorometric
>> analytical technique.
>>
>>
>> Out of curiosity I'll sound out my own organisation (UK National
>> Oceanography Centre) on the usage of DIP and
>> DISi to see if there is any change in the viewpoint in the young
Is the plan also to demote the "silicate" and "phosphate" names? That
would seem to make sense to me, consistent with Jim's points.
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:13 PM, wrote:
> Dear Jim,
>
> thanks. I think that means that we need a corrections to the statements,
> from the CF Standard Name list,
A couple of questions...
1) Regarding the request to add Chlorophyll_a fluorescence, the proposed
unit is kg/m3, but shouldn't fluorescence have radiation units (i.e.
Watts/m2)? I was not aware that any of the proposed CMIP models treated
fluorescence explicitly, but if that were the case, it wou
Hi Alison,
Thanks for following up! Some thoughts below...
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:00 PM, wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Many thanks to all those who have commented in this discussion. I think we
> have reached, or are very close to reaching, agreement on many of the
> names. In this posting I have
rectly we seem to have agreed to stick with
> due_to_abiotic_component because it works for all the names where it's
> used, including ph names. Is that right?
>
Like for "natural", this is only an analogue of what would otherwise be a
solubility-driven tracer. To identify these as se
uir...@bodc.ac.uk. Please also use this e-mail if your requirement is
> urgent.
>
>
> --
> *From:* CF-metadata on behalf of John
> Dunne - NOAA Federal
> *Sent:* 20 October 2016 18:20
> *To:* Jonathan Gregory
> *Cc:* cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
> *Subject:* Re:
I like the idea of appending "growth" to those limitation names - makes
sense.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> Dear John and Alison
>
> I think the definition of limitation is fine for the names. However I do
> still
> have a slight concern that "limitation" alone is n
The attempt to as sea surface - SS prefixes was only to follow the
convention as my understanding was that the convention could not handle two
variables with the same name but different dimensions. If that is not
truly a problem on your end, then perhaps it is a non issue.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at
Hi Jonathan,
With respect to the limitation terms, we currently have the definitations
explained in the "Resolved Comment" column as "Ratio of
realizable miscellaneous other phytoplankton growth rate under low nitrogen
stress to theoretical rate without such limitation"... Is this the scope of
des
13 matches
Mail list logo
