Hi all -
I also agree, this is the best work-around. Does the caveat
(that practical_salinity is a more precise term) belong in the
salinity definition itself?
Thanks -
Nan
On 10/6/11 9:12 AM, Lowry, Roy K. wrote:
> Hello Jonathan,
>
> I totally agree with this.
>
> Cheers, Roy.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu [mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Gregory
> Sent: 06 October 2011 14:09
> To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: [CF-metadata] new TEOS-10 standard names
>
> Dear all
>
> For various reasons which people have mentioned, I don't think we can make
> "salinity" an alias for "practical salinity". We cannot be certain what is
> meant in all existing datasets. This is a potentially a physical change.
>
> Certainly we can and should deprecate "salinity" in its definition, however,
> for observational datasets. I don't know whether this is necessarily the case
> for model datasets. Trevor and I had an exchange of emails a while ago
> discussing the use of non-real-world equations of state. In some cases I don't
> think it would be justifiable to use the term "practical salinity". That
> implies more realism than the model has in the case, for instance, where I
> am using a linear equation of state. Hence I think plain "salinity" should be
> retained in the standard_name table as a term in its own right, but with the
> caveat indicating that more precise terms should be used whenever possible
> and applicable.
>
> Cheers
>
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
--
*******************************************************
* Nan Galbraith (508) 289-2444 *
* Upper Ocean Processes Group Mail Stop 29 *
* Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution *
* Woods Hole, MA 02543 *
*******************************************************
Received on Thu Oct 06 2011 - 07:42:32 BST
