Dear Gary
Thanks for your email. Actually, I would argue that it's right as it stands,
for two reasons:
* I think the unit really is a metre. Geopotential height is geopotential
(canonically J kg-1 = m2 s-2) divided by gravitational acceleration (m s-2).
* geopotential metre is not a udunit.
I think this example is a good one to show that we don't generally use units
in CF to indicate the quantity, because the latter is the purpose of the
standard name. There are some exceptions, which CF inherited from COARDS,
which did not offer standard names.
Best wishes
Jonathan
----- Forwarded message from Gary Meehan <gmeehan at aer.com> -----
> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 07:03:02 -0500
> From: Gary Meehan <gmeehan at aer.com>
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328
> Thunderbird/17.0.5
> To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: [CF-metadata] Suggest Amending the Dimension to
> geopotential_height_at_volcanic_ash_cloud_top
>
> Dear CF Community,
>
> Last summer, my counterpart Jonathan Wrotny proposed a new standard
> name to capture the geopotential
> height of a volcanic ash cloud top. The standard name that was
> settled upon is geopotential_height_at_volcanic_ash_cloud_top.
> The dimension that was proposed is the meter.
>
> I would like to propose that this dimension be amended to
> geopotential meter (gpm) to more accurately capture
> the true nature of this physical quantity.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gary
>
> --
> Gary Meehan
> Senior Staff Scientist
> Atmospheric and Environmental Research
> 131 Hartwell Avenue, Lexington, MA 02421-3126
> Tel (781) 761-2228 ? Fax (781) 761-2299
> e-mail: gmeehan at aer.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
----- End forwarded message -----
Received on Tue Feb 11 2014 - 09:23:21 GMT
