idcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of
Durack, Paul J.
Sent: 30 June 2015 18:23
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu>
Subject: [CF-metadata] Salinity units
Apologies for coming to the party so late on this one fol
therford Appleton Laboratory
R25, 2.22
Harwell Oxford, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of
Durack, Paul J.
Sent: 30 June 2015 18:23
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: [CF-metadata] Salinity units
Apologies for coming to the party
Apologies for coming to the party so late on this one folks.. I do believe that
before progressing on changing the units for any of these variables, there
needs to be a consideration/revisitation of what is currently in place.
Back in 2011 when the TEOS-10 standard names were proposed we spent a
Dear all
The bulk of archived CF-netCDF salinity data is probably the vast amounts of
CMIP ocean model data, so I don't think we can reinterpret what this means
more precisely, since models differ in which equations of state they use. Thus
sea_surface_salinity and sea_water_salinity are deliberate
t this tomorrow.
>
> Best wishes,
> Alison
>
> ------
> Alison Pamment Tel: +44 1235 778065
> NCAS/Centre for Environmental Data ArchivalEmail:
> alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk
> STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> R25, 2.22
> Harwell
AS/Centre for Environmental Data ArchivalEmail: alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk
STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
R25, 2.22
Harwell Oxford, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
-----Original Message-----
From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf
Of Nan Galbraith
Sent: 02 June 2015
with the chair of TEOS-10 and report back.
Cheers, Roy.
From: alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk [alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk]
Sent: 02 June 2015 17:22
To: ngalbra...@whoi.edu; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Salinity units
Dear Nan, All,
Reading th
> -Original Message-
> From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf
> Of Nan Galbraith
> Sent: 02 June 2015 15:47
> To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Salinity units
>
> Hi All -
>
> Can we move on this question?
ion to help people
better understand the data.
Best wishes,
Alison
From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Nan
Galbraith
Sent: 27 May 2015 15:45
To: Rich Pawlowicz
Cc:cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Salinity units
Hi all -
The '.00
tal Data ArchivalEmail:
alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk
STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
R25, 2.22
Harwell Oxford, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Nan
Galbraith
Sent: 27 May 2015 15:45
To: Rich Pawlowicz
Cc:cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.e
Jim,
I think you go straight to the problem with using 1, or any number, as an
indication of 'dimensionless'. If I can't create a meaningful result with
linear math relations, than saying the unit is 1 invites difficulties.
That said, 1 seems better than .001. :-)
john
On May 27, 2015, at 11:
I went back to original concerns, as the discussion is a little bit here and
there. From this I conclude the canonical unit for P.S. should be changed to 1.
(For historians, I see there was a brief thread 2009.06.17 titled 'salinity
units', which started down the same question but then got sidet
e for Environmental Data ArchivalEmail:
alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk
STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
R25, 2.22
Harwell Oxford, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Nan
Galbraith
Sent: 27 May 2015 15:45
To: Rich Pawlowicz
Cc: cf-
ata ArchivalEmail:
> alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk
>
> STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
>
> R25, 2.22
>
> Harwell Oxford, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Nan
> Galbraith
> Se
om: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Nan
Galbraith
Sent: 27 May 2015 15:45
To: Rich Pawlowicz
Cc: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Salinity units
Hi all -
The '.001' units for P.S. doesn't mean that stored values of practical
sali
Dear Nan
> I wish my CF email archive went back a little further, because there's
> nothing (since 2004) that I can find that explains the rationale for
> this unit. It certainly *looks* like a compromise between a unit for a
> non-dimensional variable and PPT
I think it is, but I can't remember
ng Rich Pawlowicz on this,
hoping for his input.
Thanks,
-Rich
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Lowry, Roy K. wrote:
Dimensionless. Please
This is the view of physical oceanographers for whom I have the
greatest respect.
Cheers, Roy.
From: Reyn
the technically
>> correct thing to do would be to use the "gsw_SA_from_SP" routine to
>> convert OceanSites Practical Salinity (in units of "1") to Absolute
>> Salinity (in units of "g/kg") before comparing with the "Preformed
>> Salinity" ou
onfused though, so I'm cc'ing Rich Pawlowicz on this,
hoping for his input.
Thanks,
-Rich
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Lowry, Roy K. wrote:
Dimensionless. Please
This is the view of physical oceanographers for whom I have the greatest
respect.
Cheers, Roy.
_
rsign...@usgs.gov]
Sent: 22 May 2015 20:01
To: Lowry, Roy K.
Cc: Reyna Jenkyns; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu; OceanSITES Data Management Team;
Nan Galbraith; Richard Pawlowicz
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Salinity units
Roy,
For sure dimensionless. But "1.0", "0.001" or "g/kg
dura...@llnl.gov>>
Subject: Fwd: Re: [CF-metadata] Salinity units
FYI
Forwarded Message
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Salinity units
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 13:03:24 -0400
From: Nan Galbraith <mailto:ngalbra...@whoi.edu>
Reply-To: ngalbra...@whoi.edu<mailto:ng
n behalf of Nan Galbraith
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 10:03 AM
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu; OceanSITES Data Management Team
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Salinity units
Hello all -
It's been a long time, but is anyone interested in re-visiting the subject
of units for practical salinity in CF?
I
h, so I'm cc'ing Rich Pawlowicz on this,
hoping for his input.
Thanks,
-Rich
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Lowry, Roy K. wrote:
> Dimensionless. Please
>
> This is the view of physical oceanographers for whom I have the greatest
> respect.
>
> Cheers,
Galbraith
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Salinity units
I'm interested in this topic since I didn't realize what had been discussed
previously, and now I think we must be non-compliant as well. Is this
documented formally in the CF documentation?
Reyna Jenkyns | Data Stewardship Team Lead
ement Team
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Salinity units
Hello all -
It's been a long time, but is anyone interested in re-visiting the subject
of units for practical salinity in CF?
I was recently notified that my salinity data was likely to be
overlooked by
some users, because I'd used &
Hello all -
It's been a long time, but is anyone interested in re-visiting the subject
of units for practical salinity in CF?
I was recently notified that my salinity data was likely to be
overlooked by
some users, because I'd used '1' as the units, not '.001'. Somehow, I'd
forgotten the (long
Karl,
> We are using dB for one of the radar reflectivity fields that will be
> collected as part of CMIP5. So, I second Jonathan's suggestion to allow
> "dB" as a unit in udunits. No one has ever mentioned to me what the
> "reference level" for this field is, so I'm afraid it won't be part
Dear Karl
> Let me know if use of dB without reference is stupid.
dB could be used without a reference level if the quantity before the
logarithm was taken was already dimensionless. It doesn't make sense to
take the log of something which has a unit.
A reference level might not be stated, I sup
ctor instead of PSU for salinity. I was raising the issue on
> the list to see how widespread this opinion was.
>
> Cheers, Roy.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu
> [mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Greg
Dear Russ
I think it's a good development for udunits to support logarithmic units.
In CF standard names, however, we have taken the approach of stating the
reference level as part of the definition of the quantity, possibly allowing
it to be specified alternatively in a scalar coordinate variable
Jonathan,
> The intention of recording the units as 1e-3 (dimensionless) was to
> suggest a canonical unit of PSU i.e. approximately the same as parts
> per thousand. However, this is unclear and therefore
> unsatisfactory. We have discussed this before, in fact, and I believe
> we have decided i
to throw in an oceanographers viewpoint...
measured salinity has no units - it is determined from conductivity
and has no relationship to ppt, ppm psu or any other unit.
10-3 seems very dangerous (and equally wrong)
the only 'units' used recently (officially) are to state 'pss78' to
define
Dear All,
Might be worth looking at
http://www.oceanographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=902
Cheers, Roy.
--
This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC
is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents
of this email and any reply you make may be discl
Dear Roy
> The reason I'm resurrecting this discussion is that we came under strong
> pressure from a group of physical oceanographers to use 'dimensionless' with
> no scaling factor instead of PSU for salinity. I was raising the issue on
> the list to see how widespread this opinion was.
Yes
his opinion was.
Cheers, Roy.
-Original Message-
From: cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu
[mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Gregory
Sent: 17 June 2009 08:06
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: [CF-metadata] Salinity units
Dear Roy and Alison
The intention of reco
Dear Roy and Alison
The intention of recording the units as 1e-3 (dimensionless) was to suggest
a canonical unit of PSU i.e. approximately the same as parts per thousand.
However, this is unclear and therefore unsatisfactory. We have discussed this
before, in fact, and I believe we have decided in
Dear All,
During an exercise with Alison mapping the CF Standard Names to a units
vocabulary in the BODC vocabulary server I noticed that the units for salinity
were '1.00E-03', i.e. parts per thousand. My understanding in that since the
introduction of the Practical Salinity Scale that salini
37 matches
Mail list logo
