Hello Jonathan,
I'm glad to see that progress is being made.
Regarding:
* volume_attenuation_coefficient_of_radiation_in_sea_water:m-1
it could also be expressed as:
* volume_beam_attenuation_coefficient_of_radiation_in_sea_water:m-1
which would differentiate it from:
* volume_diffusive_attenuation_coefficient_of_radiation_in_sea_water:m-1
In a nutshell, the difference is in the angles considered. Beam attenuation considers the attenuation of (semi-)coherent light in a forward direction, while diffusive attenuation considers the attenuation from a diffuse source, which allows for a lot more forward scattering to be included in the measurement.
You asked: "Are you proposing we should have *both* of
* volume_backwards_scattering_coefficient_of_radiation_in_sea_water:m-1
* volume_scattering_coefficient_of_radiation_in_sea_water:m-1"
Yes, and you are correct that "backwards_scattering" generally refers to all backward scattering angles (pi/2 to pi). However, "forward scattering" generally refers to small angles, as I am unaware of any instrument that claims to measure 0 to pi/2 scattering (without also measuring pi/2 to pi). Then again, I have run a monte carlo model which generated just such a result.
Per your suggestion, let's go with:
* surface_partial_pressure_of_carbon_dioxide_in_air:Pa
* surface_partial_pressure_of_carbon_dioxide_in_sea_water:Pa
* surface_carbon_dioxide_partial_pressure_difference_between_air_and_sea_water:Pa
Regarding the water flow in an instrument, I'm willing to live without a standard name for it. I suppose as long as I can identify the variable as one of another variable's "ancillary_variables", my data system will still be navigable using standard names.
Best wishes
Jonathan
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Received on Tue Sep 20 2005 - 10:52:41 BST
