[CF-metadata] standard name proposal for CCMVal

From: Martin Juckes <m.n.juckes>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:48:21 +0000

Dear Jonathan,

As I mentioned earlier, the English language usage in the IPCC assessment
reports uses burden, not moles of X in the atmosphere. If I was writing a
scientific paper I would use their terminology. It is not a new concept, so
the priority, for the sake of clarity, would be to use something with an
unambiguous link to existing literature.

It does, of course, depend on who you are communicating with, but I have
difficulty imaginging a situation in which I want to explain the contents of
a netcdf file to a random member of the population. If I was addressing the
scientific community, it seems clear that sticking to existing usage would be
better,

cheers,
Martin




>Dear Martin

>> > Would moles_of_X_in_atmosphere be more self-
>> > explanatory than atmosphere_mole_burden_of_X?
>
> >I don't think so -- sorry. What is your reasoning?

>Sorry, I don't think I can give a reason - it just seems obvious to me! It is
>evident from comments (not just mine) that mole_burden doesn't *necessarily*
>mean the entire amount of X in the atmosphere expressed in moles. On the
>other hand, moles_of_X_in_atmosphere is almost exactly what I would say in
>ordinary English for this concept. I would actually say, "number of moles
>of X in the atmosphere", but "number" could be confusing, as it might be
>understood to imply an integer. How would you say it in English?

>moles_of_X_in_atmosphere would be just like mass_of_X_in_atmosphere, which is
>again what I would say to mean the entire amount in kg e.g. "The mass of CO2
>in the atmosphere is X * 10^15 kg".

>But maybe this is just my own peculiar use or understanding of English!

>Cheers

>Jonathan
Received on Fri Feb 22 2008 - 06:48:21 GMT