Hi Alison,
My count came from the whole P07 and so would indeed have included deprecates. Tidying up the definitions on the 'amounts' would certainly be my preferred way forward.
Cheers, Roy.
Please note that I now work part-time from Tuesday to Thursday. E-mail response on other days is possible but not guaranteed!
From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk
Sent: 18 December 2013 10:49
To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard Name Inconsistency?
Dear Roy,
I have just had a quick look at the 'amount' names. There are actually 53 standard names that use this terminology, plus a number of aliases, which is how I think your number of 61 arises. You are right that these all relate to accumulated precipitation or surface fluxes of water in various phases.
I think the key is that all these names refer to water collected at, or close to, the surface (including the vegetation canopy). Some of the definitions do say 'Surface amount refers to the amount on the ground, excluding that on the plant or vegetation canopy.' Others include the wording ' "Canopy" means the plant or vegetation canopy. The canopy water is the water on the canopy.' I think that all the definitions should make clear that 'amount' refers to water collected at the surface and/or canopy, regardless of whether it is simply lying or part of a process such as runoff or transpiration. I will put it on my "to do" list to check that they all conform to that rule.
I think there is a naming inconsistency in that some of the names which clearly refer to surface/canopy quantities don't actually include those terms in the names themselves, for example, transpiration_amount which I think can really only refer to vegetation and water_potential_evaporation_amount which mentions a water surface in the definition.
In contrast to the amount names, I think the mass_content names mean mass per unit area integrated throughout the entire atmospheric column or through a specified atmospheric layer. The concept is therefore not quite the same as thinking of a substance collected at the surface.
I suggest that we don't alter all the amount names to use mass_content, but instead review them to make sure that both they and their definitions are clearly marked as surface/canopy quantities. Does that sound like a reasonable way forwards?
Best wishes,
Alison
------
Alison Pamment Tel: +44 1235 778065
NCAS/British Atmospheric Data Centre Email: alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk<mailto:J.A.Pamment at rl.ac.uk>
STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
R25, 2.22
Harwell Oxford, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Lowry, Roy K.
Sent: 18 December 2013 09:03
To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
Subject: [CF-metadata] Standard Name Inconsistency?
Dear All,
During an analysis I've just done I've noticed a that some standard names use the term 'amount' for mass per unit area, whilst others use the term 'mass_content', which to me is an exact synonym. Is this correct or am I missing something?
If it is a synonym should any action be taken? If so, what? There are 519 atmospheric chemistry Standard Names that use 'mass_content' and 61 Standard Names, a lot of which are related to precipitation, that use 'amount' so any change would have significant repercussions.
Cheers, Roy.
Please note that I now work part-time from Tuesday to Thursday. E-mail response on other days is possible but not guaranteed!
________________________________
This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.
--
Scanned by iCritical.
________________________________
This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20131218/c8139c5d/attachment-0001.html>
Received on Wed Dec 18 2013 - 03:55:20 GMT
