Dear Jonathan,
I understand your concerns about the possible miss use of "change_in ...".
The restriction should be made clear at least in the explanation in the
standard name table.
Thank you for your help.
Regards
Burkhardt
cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu schrieb am 19.03.2006 17:29:45:
> Dear Burkhardt
>
> > is there any news or any decision on the "change_in_" issue?
> No-one expressed any view.
>
> Having thought about it a bit more, I think change_in_ is OK if it has
the
> same kind of uses as tendency_of. They are really the same except
change_in
> is extensive in time and tendency_of is intensive. They have the same
bounds
> in time. The units of tendency_of are X s-1 if change_in has units X. We
must
> be clear that change_in should *not* be used to describe every
> possible kind of
> difference e.g. between locations or climates. It specifically meansthe
change
> in a quantity as a function of time. Do you agree?
>
> Hence let us propose
> change_in_atmospheric_water_content_due_to_advection (kg m-2)
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20060319/6a33fe7e/attachment-0002.html>
Received on Sun Mar 19 2006 - 12:43:33 GMT
