Hi Jonathan,
I can live with that. I'm sure that a short bit of text could be crafted
to state the distinctions being ignored, if it hasn't been written by
someone already.
Best wishes,
Philip
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> Dear Philip
>
>> On the issue of ozone GROSS production and loss which I raised in
>> (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/2007/001788.html) I am
>> conflicted. This is a useful and commonly reported variable, but the
>> definition is not universally agreed upon. In practice, experts generally
>> use definitions that are within the same ball-park as each other, but an
>> outside user could be led astray, and judicious care needs to be used when
>> comparing figures from different models. Whether this is enough to
>> stop it being accepted by CF, I don't know.
>
> I don't know the details of this case, of course, but I don't think that's
> a reason not to include a name for ozone gross production. If it is useful
> to compare quantities from different datasets for certain purposes, even though
> they may have somewhat different definitions, then it will be useful to assign
> them a common name to indicate they are comparable. That is the main purpose of
> standard names. To avoid misunderstanding, the definition could state what
> distinctions are being ignored. For more exacting applications in which the
> differences of definition are material, alternative more precisely phrased
> standard names could be devised.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Philip Cameron-Smith Energy & Environment Directorate
pjc at llnl.gov Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
+1 925 4236634 7000 East Avenue, Livermore, CA94550, USA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tue Nov 06 2007 - 18:11:41 GMT
