[CF-metadata] new standard name request for pH

From: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 13:37:41 +0100

Dear John

As Philip says, if we adopt a standard name that does not say "total scale"
in it, we should certainly say that in the definition.

> In your option (1) (sea_water_pH universally), it isn't clear to me
> what other attribute would indicate the scale difference.

No, I don't know either. This would be part of whatever solution is adopted
for recording information about how things are measured, as we have discussed
in other threads.

> In case (2) (different geophysical quantities), we may be a little
> stuck. I quote from my own ocean chemist: "as an ocean chemist, I know
> EXACTLY what is meant by sea_water_pH_total_scale, and so do all the
> other ocean chemists."

Yes, fair enough. As I said, my questioning it does not imply that he doesn't
know his subject! That is not the point.

> He believes other terminology will be opaque
> and ambiguous, and therefore essentially useless.

Perhaps you could ask him, not what he calls
the quantity normally, but how would he answer, in one sentence, the question,
"What does that mean?", if he was giving a seminar in which he mentioned the
concept of pH total scale to a scientifically literature audience who were not
ocean chemists. Such people could be expected to know that pH measures
hydrogen ion concencentration in some way, but not any more details. Surely it
must be possible to say, in a phrase, what "total scale" indicates sufficiently
to get across the point of it, if not the details?

Best wishes

Jonathan
Received on Wed May 06 2009 - 06:37:41 BST