Hi Jonathan,
Frankly, no, I'm not certain. My thinking is that if anyone is using the
existing standard_name, their data is somewhat underspecified, and
since it could in principle be one of many types of CAPE, it would be
preferable to point to the more generic name.
If anybody on the mailing list has an opinion about whether generic
"CAPE" would make you think surface-based or something else, please
speak up!
(Because to be honest, I'm not much of an expert either; I just have
some data that I need to make CF-compliant, and have been learning
this topic as I go.)
On the plus side, I suspect the question of where the alias points may
well be entirely moot; the only CAPE data I've been able to find in
netcdf form "in the wild" is CF-1.0 and has an empty standard_name.
Cheers,
--Seth
On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 18:08:23 +0100
Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk> wrote:
>Dear Seth
>
>It seems fine to delete "specific", I agree. The new names look good to me.
>
>Are you sure that
>> atmosphere_specific_convective_available_potential_energy
>should be an alias of
>> atmosphere_convective_available_potential_energy
>and not of
>> atmosphere_convective_available_potential_energy_wrt_surface
>Which is the more likely understanding of the existing name? (I don't know
>- you're the expert!)
>
>Best wishes and thanks
>
>Jonathan
>_______________________________________________
>CF-metadata mailing list
>CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Received on Mon Jul 01 2013 - 16:48:49 BST
