Dear Markus,
thanks for the thoughtful response. I cc this to Uma Shankar who had sent me the RSIG (
http://badger.epa.gov/rsig/) CMAQ variable list from where this suggestion originated. CMAQ is of course a model. I don't think it would hurt to have also standard_names for pure model quantities, but I agree with you that one may have to phrase and define this more clearly. The name you propose is already in the list, and the suggestion was to include a more specific term to denote the specific contribution from Mie scattering.
Best regards,
Martin
PS: original proposal was
"* How can we get more specific about the "extinction coefficient"? In particular, we would like to express something like "..._due_to_Mie_scattering". But does this work with " volume_extinction_coefficient_in_air_due_to_ambient_aerosol". The new name would then become "volume_extinction_coefficient_in_air_due_to_Mie_scattering_of_ambient_aerosol" ? (and would "Mie" be spelled with "M" or "m"?)"
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Markus Fiebig [mailto:Markus.Fiebig at nilu.no]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 9:31 AM
> To: Schultz, Martin; cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: RE: warming up old stuff - part 1: aerosol mie scattering
>
> Dear all,
>
> please excuse if I come in late into this discussion, but I would like to make a
> few comments about the proposed variable name
>
> "volume_extinction_coefficient_in_air_due_to_mie_scattering_of_ambient
> _aerosol"
>
> As it is written above, the name is self-contradicting. The aerosol extinction
> coefficient is defined to include both, particle scattering and absorption. The
> part of the aerosol extinction coefficient that is due to particle scattering is
> commonly referred to as aerosol scattering coefficient. Also, I need to
> apologise for not having followed the discussion concerning the use of the
> term "mie", but it appears rather to confuse than to clarify in the context
> here. Even though the term Mie-particle is colloquially used for a spherical,
> internally well mixed aerosol particle, such a particle exists only in theory or in
> some numerical model. If the variable name is also to be used for an
> observed quantity, which I think it should, the term "Mie" should be avoided.
>
> How about putting this much simpler, and name the property:
>
> "volume_scattering_coefficient_in_air_due_to_ambient_aerosol"
>
> or, to avoid even more confusion:
>
> "volume_scattering_coefficient_at_stp_in_air_due_to_ambient_aerosol"
>
> Regards,
> Markus
>
>
>
> _______________________________________
> Dr. Markus Fiebig
>
> Dept. Atmospheric and Climate Research (ATMOS)
> Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU)
> P.O. Box 100
> N-2027 Kjeller
> Norway
>
> Tel.: +47 6389-8235
> Fax : +47 6389-8050
> e-mail: Markus.Fiebig at nilu.no
> skype: markus.fiebig
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forschungszentrum Juelich GmbH
52425 Juelich
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Juelich
Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Dueren Nr. HR B 3498
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: MinDir Dr. Karl Eugen Huthmacher
Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof. Dr. Achim Bachem (Vorsitzender),
Karsten Beneke (stellv. Vorsitzender), Prof. Dr.-Ing. Harald Bolt,
Prof. Dr. Sebastian M. Schmidt
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kennen Sie schon unsere app?
http://www.fz-juelich.de/app
Received on Wed Mar 07 2012 - 03:16:10 GMT
