-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] new standard names for surface aerosol optical
properties
Dear Philip, John, and all,
after discussing this issue also offline with a few peers, and including the
comments of Philip and John, I think I can propose a solution:
The original problem:
CF
Dear Markus
Thanks for your email. Your proposed solution of "dried aerosol" looks sensible
to me. I like the distinction from "dry" and "ambient" and its meaning is
obvious to me as well.
Best wishes
Jonathan
___
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata@c
Dear Philip, John, and all,
after discussing this issue also offline with a few peers, and including the
comments of Philip and John, I think I can propose a solution:
The original problem:
CF aerosol variable names so far use the terms "_due_to_ambient_aerosol" and
"due_to_dry_aerosol". For va
oun...@cgd.ucar.edu
[mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of John Graybeal
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 7:26 PM
To: Markus Fiebig
Cc: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] new standard names for surface aerosol optical
properties
I think the fundamental question is: Is
I think the fundamental question is: Is the data in every measurement sense
fully interoperable with data that is _due_to_ambient_aerosol? If not, why not?
In this case, it isn't fully interoperable because the values have been changed
due to a process (partial drying) that's been applied, ri
Dear Markus
Your summary is clear and helpful for me, as a non-expert:
> CF aerosol variable names so far use the terms "_due_to_ambient_aerosol" and
> "due_to_dry_aerosol". For variables with "_due_to_ambient_aerosol", a
> co-ordinate variable relative_humidity is required since most aerosol
> p
Dear all,
a couple of weeks ago, I proposed a list of new CF variable names for surface
aerosol optics properties (last version repeated at the end of this mail). We
had a good discussion of the proposal, and due to lots of valuable comments, we
managed to even out almost all issues, except for
Hi Philip, hi Jonathan,
thanks for your constructive input! It seems we are circling in on most of the
debated points. Even though it may seem cumbersome, I think it will be of great
value to have variable names which are common between the modelling and
observational communities. Please see my
Dear Markus and Philip
> > 6) We currently don't have any std_names with _due_to_aerosol. They
> > all specify either _ambient_ or _dry_.
> >
> > MF: The reason why I didn't write "ambient" or "dry" here is that some
> > data is neither nor. As written above, the sample is usually fed into a
> >
.
---
> -Original Message-
> From: Markus Fiebig [mailto:markus.fie...@nilu.no]
> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 8:08 AM
> To: Cameron-smith, Philip; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: RE: [CF-metadata] new standard names for surface aerosol
>
Hi Philip,
thanks for doing such a thorough job reviewing my proposal! Indeed, I should
have seen a few of the points you mention even before I posted my proposed
standard names. I therefore included, below my comments, an updated version of
my proposed list of standard names and pertaining def
tadata-
> boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Markus Fiebig
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 5:29 AM
> To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: [CF-metadata] new standard names for surface aerosol optical
> properties
>
> Dear all,
>
> since the WMO Global Atmosphere Watch (GAW
Dear all,
since the WMO Global Atmosphere Watch (GAW) programme is moving towards using
CF standard names as standard vocabulary, I'd like to propose a few standard
names that represent aerosol properties being observed at the GAW surface
sites. Since there seem to be various opinions about the
13 matches
Mail list logo
