Dear Jonathan,
Why do you not think that there is a problem if 'atmosphere' is stated to
be synonymous to _in_air, if this is simply wrong?
And the position of _atmosphere or _in_atmopshere should be consistent to
allow for automatic generation of standard names as discussed for
aerosols and chemistry, and to avoid the each time the discussion starts
again.
I do not understand the reason for having
atmosphere_mass_content_of_<X>
moles_of_<G>_in_atmosphere
and if there is no reason, why create confusion?
Best regards,
Christiane
Jonathan Gregory schrieb:
> Dear Christiane
>
>> The Guidelines for Construction of CF Standard Names
>> http://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/documents/cf-standard-names/guidelines state
for 'atmosphere' under 'Special Phrases':
>> 'atmosphere:
>> used instead of in_air for quantities which are large-scale rather than
>> local '
>> In addition, 'atmosphere' is not consistently placed:
>> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_<X>_due_to_<process>
>> Tendency_of_moles_of_<G>_in_atmosphere
>
> I don't really see the problem with this. We introduced in_atmosphere
because
> "atmosphere_moles_of_<G>" didn't sound natural. It's just a grammatical
rule
> for standard names that we use _in_atmosphere in this case instead of
the
> atmosphere prefix, I would say. There are a lot of names with the
atmosphere
> prefix and I wouldn't say there's a strong reason for changing it.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
Received on Mon Nov 10 2008 - 10:13:22 GMT
