Dear Roy, Dan,
I wholeheartedly agree with your point that using an ontological approach for new standard names in CF could be of benefit. Coming from the satellite remote sensing community, there's been a lot of discussion amongst satellite operators on whether it's worth the hassle of getting standard names recognised by CF. Most of the time the answer is, for many reasons, no, leading to noncompliance - and what's worse, heterogeneous noncompliance! Like you say, for a human it's not a big deal, but it does bind a lot of human resources in order to make use of the data.
This is one of the reasons that there is still a preference in many numerical weather prediction centres to use WMO formats such as GRIB and BUFR. Interrelating data generated in these formats binds just as much human resources again.
So there's been discussions on how to govern and interrelate data from our side, but again, we have the same resource issue as the CF governing bodies. Additionally, we don't want to find the optimal Path to the Future for us and then present CF with a finished solution which may not be agreeable to other users.
I'd be open to further collaboration in this area in order to make it easier to standardize metadata encodings for small communities for whom data integrity is crucial (as is the case for us and seems to be the case here). This would of course be separate from the current request - I don't want to hold up Heiko either.
Cheers,
Daniel
From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Lowry, Roy K.
Sent: 24 January 2018 17:55
To: Hollis, Dan <dan.hollis at metoffice.gov.uk>; cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
Cc: Gregory, Jonathan <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>
Subject: [CF-metadata] CF Ontology
Thanks Dan,
i've changed the subject to keep any further discussion clear of Heiko's proposal.
My mapping work has focused on integration of CF data into aggregations of SeaDataNet data tagged with parameter labels from the BODC parameter dictionary. This is not a simple mapping for reasons other than taking cell methods into account. For example units of measure sometimes need to be considered because the BODC dictionary isn't as dimensionally pure as the Standard Names. It has also only been done on a 'needs must' basis and so only covers a small proportion of the dictionaries.
Consequently, I haven't done much along the lines you suggest. I know others have done modelling work on CF, but I don't think that has gone as far as an ontology incorporating semantics (e.g. stating rules applicable to specific Standard Names). It would be a useful resource should anybody care to take the work on. If anyone has done anything in this area then please publicise on this list.
In SeaDataNet our objective is to make NetCDF data CF-compliant. However, like you we also include our own semantics as additional (in our case namespace-labelled) parameter attributes. We also embed the semantics as a URI rather than plaintext.
Cheers, Roy.
Please note that I partially retired on 01/11/2015. I am now only working 7.5 hours a week and can only guarantee e-mail response on Wednesdays, my day in the office. All vocabulary queries should be sent to enquiries at bodc.ac.uk<mailto:enquiries at bodc.ac.uk>. Please also use this e-mail if your requirement is urgent.
________________________________
From: Hollis, Dan <dan.hollis at metoffice.gov.uk<mailto:dan.hollis at metoffice.gov.uk>>
Sent: 24 January 2018 10:47
To: Lowry, Roy K.; cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
Cc: 'Heiko Klein'; Gregory, Jonathan
Subject: RE: [CF-metadata] Standard_name proposal for volcanic ash and radioactive particles
Hello Roy,
Many thanks for some further insight into the challenges of CF!
I certainly have no wish for Heiko?s request to stall. From recent postings it sounds like option 3 will be the pragmatic way forward. Although option 2 (normalising the names into a controlled vocab) feels to me like it would be a more ?elegant? solution, I can appreciate from your other comments that this is not as straightforward as perhaps I imagined.
Certainly, issues such as automated data aggregation and mappings between controlled vocabularies are not something I?ve needed to consider in my own work. Just out of curiosity, do you make use of the standard name descriptions to determine what other coordinates/attributes to look for (e.g. ?It must have a coordinate variable or scalar coordinate variable with a standard name of X??). I appreciate the descriptions are not controlled in the same way as the names themselves. However many of them do seem to follow a certain pattern which, if tightened up a bit, could perhaps be used by automated systems.
I?ve had a quick look through the ?Common concepts? ticket (#24 ? currently dormant!). It?s certainly an interesting topic and something that aligns closely with our own approach. We add an additional attribute (?short_name?) to our datasets to try and capture particular combinations of standard_name, cell_methods and scalar coordinate variable values (e.g. ?daily_maxtemp?, ?monthly_meantemp?, ?monthly_raindays1mm? etc). I know of other met services doing similar things. However, I can see from a quick glance through the comments that there has already been much discussion and that reaching consensus and ironing out all the different use cases is not going to be easy! If the topic ever gets off the ground again then let me know ? I?d be happy to contribute where I can.
Regards,
Dan
From: Lowry, Roy K. [mailto:rkl at bodc.ac.uk]
Sent: 19 January 2018 14:27
To: Hollis, Dan <dan.hollis at metoffice.gov.uk<mailto:dan.hollis at metoffice.gov.uk>>; cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
Cc: 'Heiko Klein' <Heiko.Klein at met.no<mailto:Heiko.Klein at met.no>>; Gregory, Jonathan <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk<mailto:j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>>
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard_name proposal for volcanic ash and radioactive particles
Hello Dan,
I think you misunderstood my first point. I was saying that provided we could recruit a couple of domain experts willing to give a little time then creation and management of the controlled vocabulary could realistically be done. I totally agree that the governance is no more difficult for isotope names embedded in Standard Names.
Note that I'm not in the least worried about a researcher receiving CF data files and scanning through NCDUMP output to understand the data. Virtually any encoding will satisfy that use case.
My real concern is the encoding of the additional information in CF in a way in which it can be discovered and understood by the kind of software agents being developed for automated data aggregation. Much of my work over the past 15 years or so has been developing the semantic infrastructure, in particular developing mappings between controlled vocabularies describing what has been measured (termed 'parameters' by oceanographic data managers). How do I present the information 'If the Standard Name is such and such then search for a bit of text in a co-ordinate variable and substitute it for a given bit of text in the Standard Name' to a reasoning engine? The answer is to build an ontology describing Standard Names and all their little quirks and establish maintenance infrastructure for it so it can keep up to date with future Standard Names.
This has been a known issue in CF for a long time. Over 10 years ago Bryan Lawrence, Alison Pamment and myself visited Heiko and her colleagues in Hamburg to try and find a way to automatically manage the CF encoding for '2m air temperature'. A Trac ticket was established - I forget the number but the name was 'Common Concepts'. It is either still open or has been put down. I've made a couple of attempts to make it happen, but every time I've lined up the necessary resources (around six staff months) staff turnover has intervened. I would love to see it addressed, but I'm not optimistic.
Heiko has made the Standard Name request and has expressed a strong preference for embedding the isotope labels in the Standard Names, presumably because if they are not then her group will either have to make changes to some of their software or lose the ability to use some standard tool or other. My supporting her is down to a judgement call of the costs of a relatively limited bloating the Standard Name list against causing disruption to her work.
What really concerns me is where we go from here. I can see three options.
1) Heiko's Standard Name request stalls completely as many have before it.
2) Heiko agrees a solution based on normalising the names into a controlled vocabulary. If she does then I will volunteer the resource to set up the necessary infrastructure.
3) We add the Standard Names Heiko is requesting.
I sincerely hope that we don't end up with option (1).
Cheers, Roy.
Please note that I partially retired on 01/11/2015. I am now only working 7.5 hours a week and can only guarantee e-mail response on Wednesdays, my day in the office. All vocabulary queries should be sent to enquiries at bodc.ac.uk<mailto:enquiries at bodc.ac.uk>. Please also use this e-mail if your requirement is urgent.
________________________________
From: Hollis, Dan <dan.hollis at metoffice.gov.uk<mailto:dan.hollis at metoffice.gov.uk>>
Sent: 19 January 2018 13:03
To: Lowry, Roy K.; cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
Cc: 'Heiko Klein'; Gregory, Jonathan
Subject: RE: [CF-metadata] Standard_name proposal for volcanic ash and radioactive particles
Hello Roy,
Thanks for your reply. (Heiko ? thanks also for your separate response pointing me to the start of this discussion.)
I should start by saying that I am not a user of radiation data (so have no expertise, or requirements, in this area) plus I have no experience of what it involves to make a significant change to CF (so forgive me if I assume something is easy when it isn?t!).
Nevertheless I?d like to play devil?s advocate regarding a couple of the points you raise.
Firstly, I don?t see why creating a separate controlled vocabulary for isotopes would be any more difficult than incorporating them in the standard names. Either way, someone has to make a decision about whether to accept a particular entry. As far as I can tell, all of the CF controlled vocabularies (standard name, area type and standardized region names) are all maintained on an ?as needed? basis. I?ve seen several instances where a particular variant of a standard name has been rejected because there was no explicit user requirement (even though defining it would in some sense ?complete the set?) ? apologies, I don?t have a specific example to give. So, given that there is no need to create a complete list of all possible isotopes right from the outset, why not create a table that includes only those proposed by Heiko? You?re going to end up accepting all of the names anyway if you go down the standard name route.
Secondly, I agree that ensuring CF datasets are discoverable is important. However, I can think of several situations that already exist where scraping the standard name is insufficient to understand the data. My area of interest is in situ climate data. I generate a variety of datasets that all have the standard name ?air_temperature?. However, if a user wants to know if they are looking at the daily maximum, or the daily minimum, or the mean daily max (or min) over a month (or season or year), or some other variant, then they need to inspect and interpret the cell methods and bounds as well. In a similar way, a count of days of precipitation above a threshold will have the standard name ?number_of_days_with_lwe_thickness_of_precipitation_amount_above_threshold?, but the user has to check the dataset for a scalar coord variable called ?precipitation_amount? to find out if the data refer to days with precip > 1mm, or 10mm, or 20mm etc.
In summary, I agree it?s nice to create fully descriptive standard names where possible, but I?d still question the case for adding thousands (or tens of thousands) of standard names in preference to adding a handful of new names and creating a new controlled vocabulary table instead.
Thoughts?
Regards,
Dan
From: Lowry, Roy K. [mailto:rkl at bodc.ac.uk]
Sent: 18 January 2018 19:33
To: Hollis, Dan <dan.hollis at metoffice.gov.uk<mailto:dan.hollis at metoffice.gov.uk>>; Gregory, Jonathan <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk<mailto:j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>>; cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard_name proposal for volcanic ash and radioactive particles
Dear Dan,
This has already been debated a few weeks back - hence Jonathan's 'are you sure' response following an earlier debate. Making such a strategy work requires a significant amount of work. First, we need to establish an authoritative isotope name controlled vocabulary with suitable governance. This is probably within reach based on what we're doing with git-hub for vocabulary governance provided we could recruit a critical mass of specialist expertise. We also have the technology to serve such a vocabulary in a way that is machine-accessible and compatible with the Semantic Web (RDF).
The other major issue is how to make data for a given isotope or group of isotopes discoverable. Typically, discovery of CF datasets is based on scraping the Standard Names. Any such scraping would have to include the yet to be discussed, let alone agreed, Standard Name isotope-name extension, which would also need to be incorporated into client software for functionality such as axis labelling in a plot of the data.
Had we addressed all this when Trac 99 was first raised then I'd have gone for normalising out isotope names. However, we didn't - one of the drawbacks of the voluntary best efforts on which CF is based - and the problem has been hanging for several years. I didn't want to put such an open-ended block in the path of Heiko's proposal, which she no doubt needs for current work.
Cheers, Roy.
Please note that I partially retired on 01/11/2015. I am now only working 7.5 hours a week and can only guarantee e-mail response on Wednesdays, my day in the office. All vocabulary queries should be sent to enquiries at bodc.ac.uk<mailto:enquiries at bodc.ac.uk>. Please also use this e-mail if your requirement is urgent.
________________________________
From: CF-metadata <cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu>> on behalf of Hollis, Dan <dan.hollis at metoffice.gov.uk<mailto:dan.hollis at metoffice.gov.uk>>
Sent: 18 January 2018 17:46
To: Gregory, Jonathan; cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard_name proposal for volcanic ash and radioactive particles
Dear Jonathan / Heiko,
Could you set up a new table, similar to the area type table, that would list all permissible isotopes? You could then define a much smaller number of new standard names with generic descriptions. For a specific dataset the isotope of interest could then be defined via a scalar coordinate variable.
Apologies if this has already been suggested.
Regards,
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Gregory
Sent: 18 January 2018 17:24
To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard_name proposal for volcanic ash and radioactive particles
Dear Heiko
I agree with the construction of these standard names. I see that you are
proposing ~1000 new standard names. The table currently contains ~3000, so
this is not overwhelming, but it is a substantial increment, so I'm just
asking again to confirm: Are we certain that we prefer to do it this way,
with the isotopes in the standard names (like chemical species)?
What does mPo mean, by the way (compared with just Po)?
Best wishes
Jonathan
----- Forwarded message from Heiko Klein <Heiko.Klein at met.no<mailto:Heiko.Klein at met.no>> -----
> Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 15:10:53 +0100
> From: Heiko Klein <Heiko.Klein at met.no<mailto:Heiko.Klein at met.no>>
> To: "Lowry, Roy K." <rkl at bodc.ac.uk<mailto:rkl at bodc.ac.uk>>, Jonathan Gregory
> <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk<mailto:j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>>, "cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>"
> <cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>>
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard_name proposal for volcanic ash and
> radioactive particles
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
> Thunderbird/52.5.0
>
> Dear all,
>
> I have the feeling that we all agree now on the usage of isotopes as
> symbols. With this post I try to summarize the proposed standard-names:
>
>
>
> Ash:
>
> mass_concentration_of_volcanic_ash_in_air
> canonical units: g/m^3
> description: Mass concentration means mass per unit volume and is
> used in the construction mass_concentration_of_X_in_Y, where X is a
> material constituent of Y. "Volcanic_ash" means the fine-grained
> products of explosive volcanic eruptions, such as minerals or
> crystals, older fragmented rock (e.g. andesite), and glass. Particles
> within a volcanic ash cloud have diameters less than 2 mm.
> "Volcanic_ash" does not include non-volcanic dust.
>
>
>
> Radioactivity (without naming the isotopes, general case):
>
> radioactivity_concentration_in_air
> Bq/m3
> Radioactivity concentration means activity per unit volume
> where activity denotes the number of decays of the material per second.
>
> surface_radioactivity_content
> Bq/m2
> "surface" means the lower boundary of the atmosphere. "Content"
> indicates a quantity per unit area. Radioactivity of X means the number
> of radioactive decays per second.
>
> integral_wrt_time_of_radioactivity_concentration_in_air
> Bq*s/m3
> The phrase "integral_wrt_X_of_Y" means int Y dX. The
> data variable should have an axis for X specifying the limits of the
> integral as bounds. "wrt" means with respect to. Radioactivity
> concentration means activity per unit volume where activity denotes the
> number of decays per second.
>
>
>
> When naming the isotope, the names are:
> radioactivity_concentration_of_X_in_air
> surface_radioactivity_content_of_X
> integral_wrt_time_of_radioactivity_concentration_of_X_in_air
> with X denoting the isotope as 210mPo. A list of proposed standard-names
> and descriptions (including full element-names) of these is attached.
>
> I hope this summary makes this proposal easier to implement in the
> standard-name table.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Heiko
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2018-01-05 10:30, Lowry, Roy K. wrote:
> > Dear Heiko,
> >
> >
> > That syntax works for me and makes the case for isotopes as symbols.
> >
> >
> > Cheers, Roy.
> >
> >
> > Please note that I partially retired on 01/11/2015. I am now only
> > working 7.5 hours a week and can only guarantee e-mail response on
> > Wednesdays, my day in the office. All vocabulary queries should be sent
> > to enquiries at bodc.ac.uk<mailto:enquiries at bodc.ac.uk>. Please also use this e-mail if your requirement
> > is urgent.
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *From:* Heiko Klein <Heiko.Klein at met.no<mailto:Heiko.Klein at met.no>>
> > *Sent:* 05 January 2018 08:04
> > *To:* Lowry, Roy K.; Jonathan Gregory; cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> > *Subject:* Re: [CF-metadata] Standard_name proposal for volcanic ash and
> > radioactive particles
> >
> > Dear Jonathan and Roy,
> >
> > while this is not part of the current proposal, we should think of
> > radionuclides in special chemical bindings. One of the most important
> > one is that of iodine and there we could have:
> >
> > 133I_as_methyl_iodide
> > 132I_as_methyl_iodide
> >
> > as well as
> >
> > 133I_as_hydrogen_iodide
> > 132I_as_hydrogen_iodide
> >
> >
> > By using IUPAC symbols for isotopes and chemical names for chemical
> > elements and compounds, we can have a nice and readable distinction
> > between these two.
> >
> > Basically, I think we all agree that mixed case IUPAC symbols are the
> > best candidate. I will start preparing a list with all proposed names.
> >
> > Heiko
> >
> >
> > On 2018-01-04 17:31, Lowry, Roy K. wrote:
> >> Dear Jonathan,
> >>
> >>
> >> My case for the hyphen is that to me it's a more natural candidate as a
> >> search target. However, if we accept mixed case IUPAC symbols for
> >> isotopes then this becomes a non-issue. In my view it would be extremely
> >> unwise to allow symbols other than for isotopes as we already have
> >> chemical names in the Standard Names.
> >>
> >>
> >> Cheers, Roy.
> >>
> >>
> >> Please note that I partially retired on 01/11/2015. I am now only
> >> working 7.5 hours a week and can only guarantee e-mail response on
> >> Wednesdays, my day in the office. All vocabulary queries should be sent
> >> to enquiries at bodc.ac.uk<mailto:enquiries at bodc.ac.uk>. Please also use this e-mail if your requirement
> >> is urgent.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> *From:* CF-metadata <cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu>> on behalf of
> >> Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk<mailto:j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>>
> >> *Sent:* 04 January 2018 16:12
> >> *To:* cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> >> *Subject:* [CF-metadata] Standard_name proposal for volcanic ash and
> >> radioactive particles
> >>
> >> Dear Heiko and Roy
> >>
> >> I agree with both of you that 210Po would be best i.e. requiring
> >> case-sensitive
> >> symbols for elements. The reason that standard names are (at present)
> >> all lower
> >> case is that case-sensitivity would simply be an opportunity for people
> >> to make
> >> mistakes, while not making them any clearer. I would expect that all
> >> scientists
> >> are aware that the symbols for chemical elements are case-sensitive so
> >> getting
> >> them right will be OK, if we draw attention specifically to this exception.
> >>
> >> Unlike you, if mixed case isn't acceptable to others, I'd prefer
> >> polonium210,
> >> because I don't think including _ or - would make it easier to understand.
> >>
> >> Another issue, though: we already have element *names* in many standard
> >> names.
> >> I presume we are not proposing to replace these with chemical element
> >> symbols.
> >> That is, we will not start writing Po for polonium in general. Is this new
> >> orthography just for the case when you want to specify a particular isotope?
> >>
> >> I'm glad that "radioactivity" is acceptable to experts. I hope it won't be
> >> confusing. I do think that people from other disciplines will be alerted by
> >> that word more effectively.
> >>
> >> Best wishes
> >>
> >> Jonathan
> >>
> >> ----- Forwarded message from Heiko Klein <Heiko.Klein at met.no<mailto:Heiko.Klein at met.no>> -----
> >>
> >>> Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 11:07:18 +0100
> >>> From: Heiko Klein <Heiko.Klein at met.no<mailto:Heiko.Klein at met.no>>
> >>> To: "Lowry, Roy K." <rkl at bodc.ac.uk<mailto:rkl at bodc.ac.uk>>, Jonathan Gregory
> >>> <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk<mailto:j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>>, "cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>"
> >>> <cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>>
> >>> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard_name proposal for volcanic ash and
> >>> radioactive particles
> >>> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
> >>> Thunderbird/52.5.0
> >>>
> >>> Dear Roy,
> >>>
> >>> I agree very much with the nomenclature used in the BODC dictionary.
> >>>
> >>> I would rule out a few of your options: When thinking of metastates,
> >>> some cases don't work, f.e. 180mta and 180mtantalum.
> >>> As you also mentioned, the number before the full-name (210-polonium) in
> >>> never used, either number before abbreviation (210Po) or number after
> >>> full-name (polonium-210). Thus the options are slightly less, but the
> >>> preference remains the same:
> >>>
> >>> 210Po (requires mixed case)
> >>> polonium-210 (requires hyphens)
> >>> polonium_210
> >>> polonium210
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>>
> >>> Heiko
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 2018-01-04 10:35, Lowry, Roy K. wrote:
> >>> > Dear Heiko,
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > For reference, the presentation syntax we use in the BODC parameter
> >>> > dictionary is of the form:
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > Activity of polonium-210 {210Po CAS 13981-52-7} per unit dry weight of
> >>> > suspended particulate material by filtration and gamma spectroscopy
> >>> > (high-purity Ge detector)
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > We use 'activity' as the technical term from the radio-chemistry
> >>> > community for decays per unit time, but I could live with
> >>> > 'radioactivity', even though its semantics to specialists are much broader.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > We have a built-in synonym exposure and so are able to use two
> >>> > representations of the isotope name. We went for polonium-210 rather
> >>> > than 210-polonium due to common English language usage (try Googling
> >>> > 210-polonium: the top hits come back as polonium-210). The syntax 210Po
> >>> > is the only way to stay sane when writing formulae for compounds
> >>> > containing multiple isotopes. As you say, the ability to use
> >>> > superscripts would be very helpful, but that isn't going to happen in
> >>> > Standard Names!
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > My vote for isotope labelling syntax depends upon what established
> >>> > conventions (if any) the CF community are prepared to break - mixed case
> >>> > or hyphens. The alternatives in my order or preference are:
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > 210Po (requires mixed case)
> >>> >
> >>> > 210po
> >>> >
> >>> > polonium-210 (requires hyphens)
> >>> >
> >>> > 210-polonium (requires hyphens)
> >>> >
> >>> > polonium_210
> >>> >
> >>> > 210_polonium
> >>> >
> >>> > polonium210
> >>> >
> >>> > 210polonium
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > So our preferences are the same.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > Cheers, Roy.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > Please note that I partially retired on 01/11/2015. I am now only
> >>> > working 7.5 hours a week and can only guarantee e-mail response on
> >>> > Wednesdays, my day in the office. All vocabulary queries should be sent
> >>> > to enquiries at bodc.ac.uk<mailto:enquiries at bodc.ac.uk>. Please also use this e-mail if your requirement
> >>> > is urgent.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> > *From:* CF-metadata <cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu>> on behalf of
> >>> > Heiko Klein <Heiko.Klein at met.no<mailto:Heiko.Klein at met.no>>
> >>> > *Sent:* 04 January 2018 08:49
> >>> > *To:* Jonathan Gregory; cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> >>> > *Subject:* Re: [CF-metadata] Standard_name proposal for volcanic ash and
> >>> > radioactive particles
> >>> >
> >>> > Dear Jonathan and Roy,
> >>> >
> >>> > after some internal discussions, we agree to the change of the name from
> >>> > activity_* to radioactivity_* to make the name more universal.
> >>> >
> >>> > Concerning the names of the radionuclides, we will need to include the
> >>> > mass-number, since there is no other distinction. I suggest using
> >>> > mass-number and the IUPAC element abbreviation, e.g. 3H. Typically, the
> >>> > 3 should be a superscript but that won't be possible here. Metastates
> >>> > are then named like 180mTa. This requires upper-case letters.
> >>> >
> >>> > If CF-standard_names don't like abbreviations, an alternative would be
> >>> > to use the hyphen notation, i.e. hydrogen-3 and tantalum-180m (see
> >>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope) - but I have never seen
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> >
> > Isotope - Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> > en.wikipedia.org
> > Isotope vs. nuclide. A nuclide is a species of an atom with a specific
> > number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus, for example carbon-13
> > with 6 protons and 7 neutrons.
> >
> >
> >
> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> >
> > Isotope - Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> > en.wikipedia.org
> > Isotope vs. nuclide. A nuclide is a species of an atom with a specific
> > number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus, for example carbon-13
> > with 6 protons and 7 neutrons.
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Isotope - Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> >
> > Isotope - Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> > en.wikipedia.org
> > Isotope vs. nuclide. A nuclide is a species of an atom with a specific
> > number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus, for example carbon-13
> > with 6 protons and 7 neutrons.
> >
> >
> >
> >> en.wikipedia.org
> >> Isotope vs. nuclide. A nuclide is a species of an atom with a specific
> >> number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus, for example carbon-13
> >> with 6 protons and 7 neutrons.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> >
> > Isotope - Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> > en.wikipedia.org
> > Isotope vs. nuclide. A nuclide is a species of an atom with a specific
> > number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus, for example carbon-13
> > with 6 protons and 7 neutrons.
> >
> >
> >
> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> >
> > Isotope - Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> > en.wikipedia.org
> > Isotope vs. nuclide. A nuclide is a species of an atom with a specific
> > number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus, for example carbon-13
> > with 6 protons and 7 neutrons.
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Isotope - Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> >
> > Isotope - Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> > en.wikipedia.org
> > Isotope vs. nuclide. A nuclide is a species of an atom with a specific
> > number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus, for example carbon-13
> > with 6 protons and 7 neutrons.
> >
> >
> >
> >> en.wikipedia.org
> >> Isotope vs. nuclide. A nuclide is a species of an atom with a specific
> >> number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus, for example carbon-13
> >> with 6 protons and 7 neutrons.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> >
> >>> > Isotope - Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> >
> > Isotope - Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> > en.wikipedia.org
> > Isotope vs. nuclide. A nuclide is a species of an atom with a specific
> > number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus, for example carbon-13
> > with 6 protons and 7 neutrons.
> >
> >
> >
> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> >
> > Isotope - Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> > en.wikipedia.org
> > Isotope vs. nuclide. A nuclide is a species of an atom with a specific
> > number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus, for example carbon-13
> > with 6 protons and 7 neutrons.
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Isotope - Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> >
> > Isotope - Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> > en.wikipedia.org
> > Isotope vs. nuclide. A nuclide is a species of an atom with a specific
> > number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus, for example carbon-13
> > with 6 protons and 7 neutrons.
> >
> >
> >
> >> en.wikipedia.org
> >> Isotope vs. nuclide. A nuclide is a species of an atom with a specific
> >> number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus, for example carbon-13
> >> with 6 protons and 7 neutrons.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> > en.wikipedia.org
> >>> > Isotope vs. nuclide. A nuclide is a species of an atom with a specific
> >>> > number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus, for example carbon-13
> >>> > with 6 protons and 7 neutrons.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > radionuclides been written out except on wikipedia, and the CF-guideline
> >>> > document forbids dash '-' as far as I can see. So I prefer the abbreviation.
> >>> >
> >>> > Best regards,
> >>> >
> >>> > Heiko
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > On 2018-01-03 18:22, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> >>> >> Dear Heiko and Roy
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I am happy to agree with you that we should retain the radioactive species in
> >>> >> the standard names, given (a) the number is not huge and as Roy said they would
> >>> >> be added only as needed, (b) the distinction between these species and other
> >>> >> chemical species is blurred, (c) there is no satisfactory external authority
> >>> >> we could rely upon. We should be systematic about how we write the names of
> >>> >> these species, as far as possible. For chemical species, we have not used
> >>> >> numerals, and they are in lower case, as all standard names are (so far). I'm
> >>> >> not sure those conventions can work for the names of nuclides though.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Best wishes
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Jonathan
> >>> >>
> >>> >> ----- Forwarded message from "Lowry, Roy K." <rkl at bodc.ac.uk<mailto:rkl at bodc.ac.uk>> -----
> >>> >>
> >>> >>> Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 13:52:01 +0000
> >>> >>> From: "Lowry, Roy K." <rkl at bodc.ac.uk<mailto:rkl at bodc.ac.uk>>
> >>> >>> To: Heiko Klein <Heiko.Klein at met.no<mailto:Heiko.Klein at met.no>>, Jonathan Gregory
> >>> >>> <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk<mailto:j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>>, "cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>"
> >>> >>> <cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>>, SCHERLLIN-PIRSCHER Barbara
> >>> >>> <Barbara.SCHERLLIN-PIRSCHER at zamg.ac.at<mailto:Barbara.SCHERLLIN-PIRSCHER at zamg.ac.at>>
> >>> >>> Subject: RE: [CF-metadata] Standard_name proposal for volcanic ash and
> >>> >>> radioactive particles
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Hi Heiko,
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Check with Alison to see if you need to do anything to prevent the volcanic ash proposal becoming blocked.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> There are more possible isotopes than I intuitively expected, but as CF philosophy is only to generate Standard Names on an 'as needed' basis the numbers should be manageable. Having the possibility of stable and radioactive compounds - say H2O (water) and 3H2O (tritiated water) - makes the clean separation of 'isotopes' and
> >>> > 'chemicals' impossible and could get very messy with say 'water'
> >>> > included in the Standard Name and 'tritiated water' normalised out into
> >>> > an isotope controlled vocabulary.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Consequently, I share your preference for managing isotopes as chemicals in Standard names.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Cheers, Roy.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> >>> From: Heiko Klein [mailto:Heiko.Klein at met.no]
> >>> >>> Sent: 03 January 2018 13:13
> >>> >>> To: Lowry, Roy K. <rkl at bodc.ac.uk<mailto:rkl at bodc.ac.uk>>; Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk<mailto:j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>>; cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>; SCHERLLIN-PIRSCHER Barbara <Barbara.SCHERLLIN-PIRSCHER at zamg.ac.at<mailto:Barbara.SCHERLLIN-PIRSCHER at zamg.ac.at>>
> >>> >>> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard_name proposal for volcanic ash and radioactive particles
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Dear Roy and Jonathan,
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> should I split the volcanic ash and radioactive partcles proposal? It seems like ash is easily accepted, while radioactivity needs some discussions.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> I will here with our experts if radioactivity can replace activity, or if this is ambiguous in the nuclear community.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Concerning the isotopes, my current list has close to 400 elements. Most of them are pure radionuclides / isotopes, but some of them are radioactive meta-states (with different half-life), and others are chemical compounds of radioactive isotopes, which have very different transport properties and/or effects (e.g. iodine as
> >>> > I2, ICH3, ICs)
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> The IAEA International Radiological Information Exchange (IRIX) format http://bip.paa.gov.pl/download/105/23784/Zalacznik6IRIXFormatv10ReferenceDescription.pdf
> >>> >>> allows either nuclides directly or nuclide combinations, but even this expert format has problems covering most cases.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> I prefer having everything in the standard_name, in particular if there is no external community actively doing own standardization. In addition, I don't even know what to call this external list, 'radioactive_material' maybe, to allow for both nuclides, metastates and compounds? I still hope to get them into the
> >>> > standard_name liste.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Best regards,
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Heiko
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> On 2017-12-22 17:43, Lowry, Roy K. wrote:
> >>> >>>> Dear Jonathan,
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> I think the number of possible isotope names is relatively small (<100
> >>> >>>> - please correct me if I'm wrong) compared to the thousand upon
> >>> >>>> thousand of possible biological taxa. If so, I wonder if normalising
> >>> >>>> out the isotope name is worth the effort of maintaining the standard
> >>> >>>> list and complication to client software.
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> Cheers, Roy.
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> Please note that I partially retired on 01/11/2015. I am now only
> >>> >>>> working 7.5 hours a week and can only guarantee e-mail response on
> >>> >>>> Wednesdays, my day in the office. All vocabulary queries should be
> >>> >>>> sent to enquiries at bodc.ac.uk<mailto:enquiries at bodc.ac.uk>. Please also use this e-mail if your
> >>> >>>> requirement is urgent.
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> >>>> --
> >>> >>>> *From:* CF-metadata <cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu>> on behalf of
> >>> >>>> Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk<mailto:j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>>
> >>> >>>> *Sent:* 22 December 2017 15:17
> >>> >>>> *To:* cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> >>> >>>> *Subject:* Re: [CF-metadata] Standard_name proposal for volcanic ash
> >>> >>>> and radioactive particles
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> Dear Heiko and Barbara
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> I see that "activity concentration" is an technical term, but in the
> >>> >>>> broader context of the CF standard name table I feel it would be
> >>> >>>> better to say radioactivity_concentration and radioactivity_content,
> >>> >>>> to make it clear what sort of activity it's about.
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> As you say, we name chemical species in standard names, but there are
> >>> >>>> not so many of these that have been requested. I think it's a choice
> >>> >>>> to be made about whether isotopes should be named explicitly. In the
> >>> >>>> analogous case of biological taxa,
> >>> >>>> https://cf-trac.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/99 discussed not putting their
> >>> >>>> identifiers in the standard name. That discussion wasn't concluded. A
> >>> >>>> similar approach could be taken here, of putting "isotope" in the
> >>> >>>> standard name, and requiring there to be a string-valued coordinate
> >>> >>>> variable identifying the isotope from a standard list (like area types
> >>> >>>> and regions).
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> Best wishes
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> Jonathan
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> ----- Forwarded message from Heiko Klein <Heiko.Klein at met.no<mailto:Heiko.Klein at met.no>> -----
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>>> Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 09:41:42 +0100
> >>> >>>>> From: Heiko Klein <Heiko.Klein at met.no<mailto:Heiko.Klein at met.no>>
> >>> >>>>> To: SCHERLLIN-PIRSCHER Barbara
> >>> >>>>> <Barbara.SCHERLLIN-PIRSCHER at zamg.ac.at<mailto:Barbara.SCHERLLIN-PIRSCHER at zamg.ac.at>>,
> >>> >>>>> "cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>" <cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>>
> >>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard_name proposal for volcanic ash
> >>> >>>>> and
> >>> >>>>> radioactive particles
> >>> >>>>> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
> >>> >>>>> Thunderbird/52.5.0
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> Dear Barbara and list,
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> I agree with you that both volcanic ash and nuclear particles are
> >>> >>>>> insufficiently reflected in the standard-name table and we need a
> >>> >>>>> proposal for new names.
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> We have 'atmosphere_mass_content_of_volcanic_ash' which is the column
> >>> >>>>> load and for concentrations, we have mass_concentration_of_*_in_air
> >>> >>>>> so I would slightly modify your parameter and propose:
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> mass_concentration_of_volcanic_ash_in_air
> >>> >>>>> canonical units: g/m^3
> >>> >>>>> description: Mass concentration means mass per unit volume and is
> >>> >>>>> used in the construction mass_concentration_of_X_in_Y, where X is a
> >>> >>>>> material constituent of Y. "Volcanic_ash" means the fine-grained
> >>> >>>>> products of explosive volcanic eruptions, such as minerals or
> >>> >>>>> crystals, older fragmented rock (e.g. andesite), and glass. Particles
> >>> >>>>> within a volcanic ash cloud have diameters less than 2 mm.
> >>> >>>>> "Volcanic_ash" does not include non-volcanic dust.
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> Concerning radioactivity, the situation is more difficult. I would
> >>> >>>>> say we have 2 basic types: concentrations in air and depositions, and
> >>> >>>>> the time-integral of the first. I would call depositions 'surface_content'
> >>> >>>>> in CF, since content is defined as: a quantity per unit area. I
> >>> >>>>> propose the following:
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> activity_concentration_of_X_in_air (Bq/m3)
> >>> >>>>> Description: Activity concentration means activity per unit volume
> >>> >>>>> and is used in the construction activity_concentration_of_X_in_Y,
> >>> >>>>> where X is a radioactive material and activity denotes the number of
> >>> >>>>> decays of the material per second.
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> surface_activity_content_of_X (Bq/m2)
> >>> >>>>> Description: "surface" means the lower boundary of the atmosphere.
> >>> >>>>> "Content" indicates a quantity per unit area. activity of X means the
> >>> >>>>> number of radioactive decays of the material X per second.
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> The first is often integrated over time for dose-calculations, i.e.
> >>> >>>>> integral_wrt_time in CF-nomenclature:
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> integral_wrt_time_of_activity_concentration_of_X_in_air (Bq*s/m3)
> >>> >>>>> Description: The phrase "integral_wrt_X_of_Y" means int Y dX. The
> >>> >>>>> data variable should have an axis for X specifying the limits of the
> >>> >>>>> integral as bounds. "wrt" means with respect to. Activity
> >>> >>>>> concentration means activity per unit volume and is used in the
> >>> >>>>> construction activity_concentration_of_X_in_Y, where X is a
> >>> >>>>> radioactive material and activity denotes the number of decays of the material per second.
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> The tricky part is the X here, which is a very long list of
> >>> >>>>> radioactive isotopes. I attach the list which is in active use for
> >>> >>>>> us, i.e. 383 nuclides including a few meta-states and chemical
> >>> >>>>> speciations in particular for Iodine. Usual names for thes ar the
> >>> >>>>> second and third column, i.e. H3, Na24, Ar41, Ge77m, Ge77 ... In CF,
> >>> >>>>> it is most common to have these names in the standard-name (X in
> >>> >>>>> above proposals) I'm not sure if it is practical possible to add
> >>> >>>>> these 4*383 standard-names to the list? If it is just a question of formatting, I can try to do that.
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> Best regards,
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> Heiko
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> On 2017-12-18 14:36, SCHERLLIN-PIRSCHER Barbara wrote:
> >>> >>>>>> Dear all,
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> I'd like to ask some questions about appropriate standard names of
> >>> >>>>>> some
> >>> >>>>>> variables:
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> I'm looking for the standard name of mean concentration of volcanic
> >>> >>>>>> ash at specific altitude levels.
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> I used
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> mass_concentration_of_ash_in_air
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> but the CF convention checker realizes that this is an invalid
> >>> >>>>>> standard_name.
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> Unfortunately, I did not find a valid standard name yet. Do you
> >>> >>>>>> have any recommendations?
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> Furthermore, I'm looking for some standard names for variables
> >>> >>>>>> related to radioactivity.
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> I used
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> deposited_activity_concentration (in Bq/m2).
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> and
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> time_integrated_activity_concentration_in_air (Bq s/m3).
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> The first variable contains information about the deposited
> >>> >>>>>> activity concentration that depends on the type of the nuclide,
> >>> >>>>>> time, latitude, and longitude.
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> The second variable contains information about the time-integrated
> >>> >>>>>> activity concentration of different radionuclides at specific levels.
> >>> >>>>>> It's dimensions are type of the nuclide, time, height, latitude,
> >>> >>>>>> and longitude.
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> Do you have any recommendation concerning the standard names of
> >>> >>>>>> these variables?
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> Finally, I need to define a variable that contains the information
> >>> >>>>>> about the radioactive nuclide itself. I defined a character
> >>> >>>>>> variable that uses the (invalid) standard name:
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> radioactive_nuclides
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> Do you also have advice for the standard name of this variable?
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> Thanks a lot for your help!
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> Best regards,
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> Barbara
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> Dr. Barbara Scherllin-Pirscher
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> Fachabteilung Chemische Wettervorhersage/Section Chemical Weather
> >>> >>>>>> Forecasts
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> Bereich Daten, Methoden, Modelle/Division Data, Methods, Models
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> ZAMG - Zentralanstalt f?r Meteorologie und Geodynamik
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> A-1190 Wien, Hohe Warte 38
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> Tel.: +43 1 36026 2380
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> Fax: +43 1 36026 74
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> E-Mail: barbara.scherllin-pirscher at zamg.ac.at<mailto:barbara.scherllin-pirscher at zamg.ac.at>
> >>> >>>>>> <mailto:barbara.scherllin-pirscher at zamg.ac.at>__
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> www.zamg.ac.at<http://www.zamg.ac.at> <http://www.zamg.ac.at> <http://www.zamg.ac.at>
> > <http://www.zamg.ac.at>
> >> <http://www.zamg.ac.at>
> >>> > <http://www.zamg.ac.at/>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> Join us on facebook: www.facebook.com/zamg.at<http://www.facebook.com/zamg.at> <http://www.facebook.com/zamg.at>
> > <http://www.facebook.com/zamg.at>
> >> <http://www.facebook.com/zamg.at>
> >>> >>>>>> <http://www.facebook.com/zamg.at>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> Beschreibung: Beschreibung: Beschreibung: Beschreibung: Beschreibung:
> >>> >>>>>> cid:099c01ccebf6$aa43e440$7ba4168a at zadpc6 <http://www.zamg.at/>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>> >>>>>> CF-metadata mailing list
> >>> >>>>>> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> >>> >>>>>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> --
> >>> >>>>> Dr. Heiko Klein Norwegian Meteorological Institute
> >>> >>>>> Tel. + 47 22 96 32 58 P.O. Box 43 Blindern
> >>> >>>>> http://www.met.no 0313 Oslo NORWAY
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>>> 1 H - 3 0 0.178E-08
> >>> >>>>> 2 Na- 24 2 0.128E-04
> >>> >>>>> 3 Ar- 41 0 0.105E-03
> >>> >>>>> 4 Co- 58 2 0.113E-06
> >>> >>>>> 5 Co- 60 2 0.416E-08
> >>> >>>>> 6 Zn- 72 2 0.414E-05
> >>> >>>>> 7 Ga- 72 2 0.137E-04
> >>> >>>>> 8 Ga- 73 2 0.395E-04
> >>> >>>>> 9 Ge- 75 2 0.140E-03
> >>> >>>>> 10 Ge- 77m 2 0.128E-01
> >>> >>>>> 11 Ge- 77 2 0.170E-04
> >>> >>>>> 12 Ge- 78 2 0.133E-03
> >>> >>>>> 13 As- 77 2 0.496E-05
> >>> >>>>> 14 As- 78 2 0.127E-03
> >>> >>>>> 15 Se- 79 2 0.338E-12
> >>> >>>>> 16 Se- 81m 2 0.202E-03
> >>> >>>>> 17 Se- 81 2 0.625E-03
> >>> >>>>> 18 Se- 83m 2 0.990E-02
> >>> >>>>> 19 Se- 83 2 0.513E-03
> >>> >>>>> 20 Br- 82m 2 0.189E-02
> >>> >>>>> 21 Br- 82 2 0.544E-05
> >>> >>>>> 22 Br- 83 2 0.802E-04
> >>> >>>>> 23 Br- 84m 2 0.193E-02
> >>> >>>>> 24 Br- 84 2 0.363E-03
> >>> >>>>> 25 Kr- 83m 0 0.104E-03
> >>> >>>>> 26 Kr- 85m 0 0.438E-04
> >>> >>>>> 27 Kr- 85 0 0.203E-08
> >>> >>>>> 28 Kr- 87 0 0.152E-03
> >>> >>>>> 29 Kr- 88 0 0.686E-04
> >>> >>>>> 30 Kr- 89 0 0.364E-02
> >>> >>>>> 31 Rb- 86m 2 0.114E-01
> >>> >>>>> 32 Rb- 86 2 0.430E-06
> >>> >>>>> 33 Rb- 87 2 0.470E-18
> >>> >>>>> 34 Rb- 88 2 0.642E-03
> >>> >>>>> 35 Rb- 89 2 0.760E-03
> >>> >>>>> 36 Sr- 89 2 0.154E-06
> >>> >>>>> 37 Sr- 90 2 0.787E-09
> >>> >>>>> 38 Sr- 91 2 0.203E-04
> >>> >>>>> 39 Sr- 92 2 0.711E-04
> >>> >>>>> 40 Y - 90m 2 0.604E-04
> >>> >>>>> 41 Y - 90 2 0.301E-05
> >>> >>>>> 42 Y - 91m 2 0.232E-03
> >>> >>>>> 43 Y - 91 2 0.137E-06
> >>> >>>>> 44 Y - 92 2 0.545E-04
> >>> >>>>> 45 Y - 93 2 0.189E-04
> >>> >>>>> 46 Y - 94 2 0.608E-03
> >>> >>>>> 47 Y - 95 2 0.110E-02
> >>> >>>>> 48 Zr- 93 2 0.231E-13
> >>> >>>>> 49 Zr- 95 2 0.123E-06
> >>> >>>>> 50 Zr- 97 2 0.115E-04
> >>> >>>>> 51 Nb- 94m 2 0.185E-02
> >>> >>>>> 52 Nb- 94 2 0.110E-11
> >>> >>>>> 53 Nb- 95m 2 0.222E-05
> >>> >>>>> 54 Nb- 95 2 0.228E-06
> >>> >>>>> 55 Nb- 96 2 0.823E-05
> >>> >>>>> 56 Nb- 97m 2 0.128E-01
> >>> >>>>> 57 Nb- 97 2 0.157E-03
> >>> >>>>> 58 Nb- 98 2 0.227E-03
> >>> >>>>> 59 Mo- 99 2 0.289E-05
> >>> >>>>> 60 Mo-101 2 0.791E-03
> >>> >>>>> 61 Mo-102 2 0.104E-02
> >>> >>>>> 62 Tc- 99m 2 0.320E-04
> >>> >>>>> 63 Tc- 99 2 0.103E-12
> >>> >>>>> 64 Tc-101 2 0.814E-03
> >>> >>>>> 65 Tc-102m 2 0.269E-02
> >>> >>>>> 66 Tc-102 2 0.131E+00
> >>> >>>>> 67 Tc-104 2 0.642E-03
> >>> >>>>> 68 Ru-103 2 0.203E-06
> >>> >>>>> 69 Ru-105 2 0.434E-04
> >>> >>>>> 70 Ru-106 2 0.219E-07
> >>> >>>>> 71 Rh-103m 2 0.206E-03
> >>> >>>>> 72 Rh-105m 2 0.182E-01
> >>> >>>>> 73 Rh-105 2 0.542E-05
> >>> >>>>> 74 Rh-106m 2 0.883E-04
> >>> >>>>> 75 Rh-106 2 0.232E-01
> >>> >>>>> 76 Rh-107 2 0.532E-03
> >>> >>>>> 77 Pd-107m 2 0.325E-01
> >>> >>>>> 78 Pd-107 2 0.338E-14
> >>> >>>>> 79 Pd-109 2 0.143E-04
> >>> >>>>> 80 Pd-111m 2 0.350E-04
> >>> >>>>> 81 Pd-111 2 0.525E-03
> >>> >>>>> 82 Pd-112 2 0.958E-05
> >>> >>>>> 83 Ag-109m 2 0.175E-01
> >>> >>>>> 84 Ag-110m 2 0.297E-07
> >>> >>>>> 85 Ag-111m 2 0.937E-02
> >>> >>>>> 86 Ag-111 2 0.107E-05
> >>> >>>>> 87 Ag-112 2 0.615E-04
> >>> >>>>> 88 Ag-113m 2 0.105E-01
> >>> >>>>> 89 Ag-113 2 0.363E-04
> >>> >>>>> 90 Ag-115m 2 0.408E-01
> >>> >>>>> 91 Ag-115 2 0.550E-03
> >>> >>>>> 92 Cd-111m 2 0.237E-03
> >>> >>>>> 93 Cd-113m 2 0.151E-08
> >>> >>>>> 94 Cd-113 2 0.244E-23
> >>> >>>>> 95 Cd-115m 2 0.180E-06
> >>> >>>>> 96 Cd-115 2 0.360E-05
> >>> >>>>> 97 Cd-117m 2 0.566E-04
> >>> >>>>> 98 Cd-117 2 0.741E-04
> >>> >>>>> 99 Cd-118 2 0.230E-03
> >>> >>>>> 100 In-113m 2 0.116E-03
> >>> >>>>> 101 In-115m 2 0.428E-04
> >>> >>>>> 102 In-115 2 0.431E-23
> >>> >>>>> 103 In-116m 2 0.213E-03
> >>> >>>>> 104 In-116 2 0.488E-01
> >>> >>>>> 105 In-117m 2 0.993E-04
> >>> >>>>> 106 In-117 2 0.263E-03
> >>> >>>>> 107 In-118m 2 0.263E-02
> >>> >>>>> 108 In-118 2 0.139E+00
> >>> >>>>> 109 In-119m 2 0.642E-03
> >>> >>>>> 110 In-119 2 0.462E-02
> >>> >>>>> 111 Sn-117m 2 0.573E-06
> >>> >>>>> 112 Sn-119m 2 0.328E-07
> >>> >>>>> 113 Sn-121m 2 0.440E-09
> >>> >>>>> 114 Sn-121 2 0.718E-05
> >>> >>>>> 115 Sn-123m 2 0.289E-03
> >>> >>>>> 116 Sn-123 2 0.622E-07
> >>> >>>>> 117 Sn-125 2 0.831E-06
> >>> >>>>> 118 Sn-126 2 0.220E-12
> >>> >>>>> 119 Sn-127 2 0.908E-04
> >>> >>>>> 120 Sn-128 2 0.196E-03
> >>> >>>>> 121 Sn-130 2 0.312E-02
> >>> >>>>> 122 Sb-124m 2 0.569E-03
> >>> >>>>> 123 Sb-124 2 0.133E-06
> >>> >>>>> 124 Sb-125 2 0.805E-08
> >>> >>>>> 125 Sb-126m 2 0.608E-03
> >>> >>>>> 126 Sb-126 2 0.647E-06
> >>> >>>>> 127 Sb-127 2 0.211E-05
> >>> >>>>> 128 Sb-128m 2 0.111E-02
> >>> >>>>> 129 Sb-128 2 0.214E-04
> >>> >>>>> 130 Sb-129 2 0.444E-04
> >>> >>>>> 131 Sb-130m 2 0.175E-02
> >>> >>>>> 132 Sb-130 2 0.312E-03
> >>> >>>>> 133 Sb-131 2 0.502E-03
> >>> >>>>> 134 Te-125m 2 0.138E-06
> >>> >>>>> 135 Te-127m 2 0.736E-07
> >>> >>>>> 136 Te-127 2 0.205E-04
> >>> >>>>> 137 Te-129m 2 0.240E-06
> >>> >>>>> 138 Te-129 2 0.165E-03
> >>> >>>>> 139 Te-131m 2 0.642E-05
> >>> >>>>> 140 Te-131 2 0.462E-03
> >>> >>>>> 141 Te-132 2 0.247E-05
> >>> >>>>> 142 Te-133m 2 0.209E-03
> >>> >>>>> 143 Te-133 2 0.924E-03
> >>> >>>>> 144 Te-134 2 0.275E-03
> >>> >>>>> 145 I -129 1 0.138E-14
> >>> >>>>> 146 I -130m 1 0.130E-02
> >>> >>>>> 147 I -130 1 0.155E-04
> >>> >>>>> 148 I -131 1 0.994E-06
> >>> >>>>> 149 I -132 1 0.836E-04
> >>> >>>>> 150 I -133m 1 0.770E-01
> >>> >>>>> 151 I -133 1 0.921E-05
> >>> >>>>> 152 I -134m 1 0.321E-02
> >>> >>>>> 153 I -134 1 0.222E-03
> >>> >>>>> 154 I -135 1 0.288E-04
> >>> >>>>> 155 Xe-129m 0 0.100E-05
> >>> >>>>> 156 Xe-131m 0 0.680E-06
> >>> >>>>> 157 Xe-133m 0 0.355E-05
> >>> >>>>> 158 Xe-133 0 0.152E-05
> >>> >>>>> 159 Xe-134m 0 0.239E+01
> >>> >>>>> 160 Xe-135m 0 0.743E-03
> >>> >>>>> 161 Xe-135 0 0.210E-04
> >>> >>>>> 162 Xe-137 0 0.296E-02
> >>> >>>>> 163 Xe-138 0 0.815E-03
> >>> >>>>> 164 Cs-134m 2 0.664E-04
> >>> >>>>> 165 Cs-134 2 0.107E-07
> >>> >>>>> 166 Cs-135m 2 0.218E-03
> >>> >>>>> 167 Cs-135 2 0.956E-14
> >>> >>>>> 168 Cs-136 2 0.617E-06
> >>> >>>>> 169 Cs-137 2 0.729E-09
> >>> >>>>> 170 Cs-138 2 0.359E-03
> >>> >>>>> 171 Ba-135m 2 0.671E-05
> >>> >>>>> 172 Ba-137m 2 0.453E-02
> >>> >>>>> 173 Ba-139 2 0.139E-03
> >>> >>>>> 174 Ba-140 2 0.627E-06
> >>> >>>>> 175 La-140 2 0.456E-05
> >>> >>>>> 176 La-141 2 0.498E-04
> >>> >>>>> 177 La-142 2 0.125E-03
> >>> >>>>> 178 La-143 2 0.825E-03
> >>> >>>>> 179 Ce-141 2 0.243E-06
> >>> >>>>> 180 Ce-142 2 0.440E-24
> >>> >>>>> 181 Ce-143 2 0.584E-05
> >>> >>>>> 182 Ce-144 2 0.282E-07
> >>> >>>>> 183 Ce-146 2 0.814E-03
> >>> >>>>> 184 Pr-142m 2 0.791E-03
> >>> >>>>> 185 Pr-142 2 0.101E-04
> >>> >>>>> 186 Pr-143 2 0.591E-06
> >>> >>>>> 187 Pr-144m 2 0.161E-02
> >>> >>>>> 188 Pr-144 2 0.669E-03
> >>> >>>>> 189 Pr-145 2 0.322E-04
> >>> >>>>> 190 Pr-146 2 0.477E-03
> >>> >>>>> 191 Pr-147 2 0.963E-03
> >>> >>>>> 192 Nd-144 2 0.105E-22
> >>> >>>>> 193 Nd-147 2 0.730E-06
> >>> >>>>> 194 Nd-149 2 0.111E-03
> >>> >>>>> 195 Nd-151 2 0.932E-03
> >>> >>>>> 196 Nd-152 2 0.101E-02
> >>> >>>>> 197 Pm-147 2 0.838E-08
> >>> >>>>> 198 Pm-148m 2 0.194E-06
> >>> >>>>> 199 Pm-148 2 0.149E-05
> >>> >>>>> 200 Pm-149 2 0.363E-05
> >>> >>>>> 201 Pm-150 2 0.718E-04
> >>> >>>>> 202 Pm-151 2 0.678E-05
> >>> >>>>> 203 Pm-152m 2 0.642E-03
> >>> >>>>> 204 Pm-152 2 0.282E-02
> >>> >>>>> 205 Sm-147 2 0.205E-18
> >>> >>>>> 206 Sm-148 2 0.275E-23
> >>> >>>>> 207 Sm-149 2 0.220E-23
> >>> >>>>> 208 Sm-151 2 0.236E-09
> >>> >>>>> 209 Sm-153 2 0.414E-05
> >>> >>>>> 210 Sm-155 2 0.520E-03
> >>> >>>>> 211 Sm-156 2 0.205E-04
> >>> >>>>> 212 Eu-154 2 0.256E-08
> >>> >>>>> 213 Eu-155 2 0.458E-08
> >>> >>>>> 214 Eu-156 2 0.528E-06
> >>> >>>>> 215 Eu-157 2 0.127E-04
> >>> >>>>> 216 Eu-158 2 0.252E-03
> >>> >>>>> 217 Eu-159 2 0.638E-03
> >>> >>>>> 218 Gd-159 2 0.104E-04
> >>> >>>>> 219 Gd-162 2 0.116E-02
> >>> >>>>> 220 Tb-160 2 0.111E-06
> >>> >>>>> 221 Tb-161 2 0.116E-05
> >>> >>>>> 222 Tb-162m 2 0.863E-04
> >>> >>>>> 223 Tb-162 2 0.155E-02
> >>> >>>>> 224 Tb-163 2 0.592E-03
> >>> >>>>> 225 Dy-165 2 0.819E-04
> >>> >>>>> 226 Hg-206 2 0.144E-02
> >>> >>>>> 227 Tl-206 2 0.276E-02
> >>> >>>>> 228 Tl-207 2 0.241E-02
> >>> >>>>> 229 Tl-208 2 0.373E-02
> >>> >>>>> 230 Tl-209 2 0.525E-02
> >>> >>>>> 231 Tl-210 2 0.889E-02
> >>> >>>>> 232 Pb-207m 2 0.866E+00
> >>> >>>>> 233 Pb-209 2 0.583E-04
> >>> >>>>> 234 Pb-210 2 0.105E-08
> >>> >>>>> 235 Pb-211 2 0.320E-03
> >>> >>>>> 236 Pb-212 2 0.181E-04
> >>> >>>>> 237 Pb-213 2 0.116E-02
> >>> >>>>> 238 Pb-214 2 0.431E-03
> >>> >>>>> 239 Bi-209 2 0.110E-25
> >>> >>>>> 240 Bi-210 2 0.160E-05
> >>> >>>>> 241 Bi-211 2 0.537E-02
> >>> >>>>> 242 Bi-212 2 0.191E-03
> >>> >>>>> 243 Bi-213 2 0.246E-03
> >>> >>>>> 244 Bi-214 2 0.586E-03
> >>> >>>>> 245 Bi-215 2 0.165E-02
> >>> >>>>> 246 Po-210 2 0.580E-07
> >>> >>>>> 247 Po-211 2 0.133E+01
> >>> >>>>> 248 Po-212 2 0.228E+07
> >>> >>>>> 249 Po-213 2 0.165E+06
> >>> >>>>> 250 Po-214 2 0.423E+04
> >>> >>>>> 251 Po-215 2 0.389E+03
> >>> >>>>> 252 Po-216 2 0.462E+01
> >>> >>>>> 253 Po-217 2 0.693E-01
> >>> >>>>> 254 Po-218 2 0.379E-02
> >>> >>>>> 255 At-215 2 0.693E+04
> >>> >>>>> 256 At-216 2 0.231E+04
> >>> >>>>> 257 At-217 2 0.217E+02
> >>> >>>>> 258 At-218 2 0.347E+00
> >>> >>>>> 259 At-219 2 0.128E-01
> >>> >>>>> 260 Rn-218 2 0.198E+02
> >>> >>>>> 261 Rn-219 2 0.173E+00
> >>> >>>>> 262 Rn-220 2 0.126E-01
> >>> >>>>> 263 Rn-221 2 0.462E-03
> >>> >>>>> 264 Rn-222 2 0.210E-05
> >>> >>>>> 265 Rn-223 2 0.269E-03
> >>> >>>>> 266 Fr-221 2 0.241E-02
> >>> >>>>> 267 Fr-222 2 0.781E-03
> >>> >>>>> 268 Fr-223 2 0.525E-03
> >>> >>>>> 269 Ra-222 2 0.182E-01
> >>> >>>>> 270 Ra-223 0 0.702E-06
> >>> >>>>> 271 Ra-224 0 0.220E-05
> >>> >>>>> 272 Ra-225 0 0.542E-06
> >>> >>>>> 273 Ra-226 0 0.137E-10
> >>> >>>>> 274 Ra-227 0 0.280E-03
> >>> >>>>> 275 Ra-228 0 0.328E-08
> >>> >>>>> 276 Ra-229 0 0.693E+12
> >>> >>>>> 277 Ac-225 2 0.802E-06
> >>> >>>>> 278 Ac-226 2 0.664E-05
> >>> >>>>> 279 Ac-227 2 0.102E-08
> >>> >>>>> 280 Ac-228 2 0.314E-04
> >>> >>>>> 281 Ac-229 2 0.175E-03
> >>> >>>>> 282 Th-226 2 0.374E-03
> >>> >>>>> 283 Th-227 2 0.441E-06
> >>> >>>>> 284 Th-228 2 0.115E-07
> >>> >>>>> 285 Th-229 2 0.299E-11
> >>> >>>>> 286 Th-230 2 0.275E-12
> >>> >>>>> 287 Th-231 2 0.755E-05
> >>> >>>>> 288 Th-232 2 0.156E-17
> >>> >>>>> 289 Th-233 2 0.520E-03
> >>> >>>>> 290 Th-234 2 0.333E-06
> >>> >>>>> 291 Pa-230 2 0.453E-06
> >>> >>>>> 292 Pa-231 2 0.676E-12
> >>> >>>>> 293 Pa-232 2 0.612E-05
> >>> >>>>> 294 Pa-233 2 0.297E-06
> >>> >>>>> 295 Pa-234m 2 0.987E-02
> >>> >>>>> 296 Pa-234 2 0.285E-04
> >>> >>>>> 297 U -230 2 0.386E-06
> >>> >>>>> 298 U -231 2 0.187E-05
> >>> >>>>> 299 U -232 2 0.305E-09
> >>> >>>>> 300 U -233 2 0.136E-12
> >>> >>>>> 301 U -234 2 0.889E-13
> >>> >>>>> 302 U -235 2 0.309E-16
> >>> >>>>> 303 U -236 2 0.919E-15
> >>> >>>>> 304 U -237 2 0.119E-05
> >>> >>>>> 305 U -238 2 0.487E-17
> >>> >>>>> 306 U -239 2 0.492E-03
> >>> >>>>> 307 U -240 2 0.134E-04
> >>> >>>>> 308 Np-235 2 0.196E-07
> >>> >>>>> 309 Np-236m 2 0.170E-15
> >>> >>>>> 310 Np-236 2 0.875E-05
> >>> >>>>> 311 Np-237 2 0.103E-13
> >>> >>>>> 312 Np-238 2 0.382E-05
> >>> >>>>> 313 Np-239 2 0.341E-05
> >>> >>>>> 314 Np-240m 2 0.158E-02
> >>> >>>>> 315 Np-240 2 0.183E-03
> >>> >>>>> 316 Pu-235 2 0.444E-03
> >>> >>>>> 317 Pu-236 2 0.771E-08
> >>> >>>>> 318 Pu-237 2 0.176E-06
> >>> >>>>> 319 Pu-238 2 0.255E-09
> >>> >>>>> 320 Pu-239 2 0.900E-12
> >>> >>>>> 321 Pu-240 2 0.334E-11
> >>> >>>>> 322 Pu-241 2 0.166E-08
> >>> >>>>> 323 Pu-242 2 0.580E-13
> >>> >>>>> 324 Pu-243 2 0.387E-04
> >>> >>>>> 325 Pu-244 2 0.275E-15
> >>> >>>>> 326 Pu-245 2 0.193E-04
> >>> >>>>> 327 Am-240 2 0.378E-05
> >>> >>>>> 328 Am-241 2 0.480E-10
> >>> >>>>> 329 Am-242* 2 0.495E+02
> >>> >>>>> 330 Am-242m 2 0.145E-09
> >>> >>>>> 331 Am-242 2 0.120E-04
> >>> >>>>> 332 Am-243 2 0.276E-11
> >>> >>>>> 333 Am-244m 2 0.444E-03
> >>> >>>>> 334 Am-244 2 0.191E-04
> >>> >>>>> 335 Am-245 2 0.917E-04
> >>> >>>>> 336 Cm-241 2 0.229E-06
> >>> >>>>> 337 Cm-242 2 0.492E-07
> >>> >>>>> 338 Cm-243 2 0.686E-09
> >>> >>>>> 339 Cm-244 2 0.125E-08
> >>> >>>>> 340 Cm-245 2 0.236E-11
> >>> >>>>> 341 Cm-246 2 0.399E-11
> >>> >>>>> 342 Cm-247 2 0.137E-14
> >>> >>>>> 343 Cm-248 2 0.467E-13
> >>> >>>>> 344 Cm-249 2 0.181E-03
> >>> >>>>> 345 Cm-250 2 0.318E-11
> >>> >>>>> 346 Bk-249 2 0.255E-07
> >>> >>>>> 347 Bk-250 2 0.598E-04
> >>> >>>>> 348 Cf-249 2 0.610E-10
> >>> >>>>> 349 Cf-250 2 0.169E-08
> >>> >>>>> 350 Cf-251 2 0.275E-10
> >>> >>>>> 351 Cf-252 2 0.829E-08
> >>> >>>>> 352 Cf-253 2 0.456E-06
> >>> >>>>> 353 Cf-254 2 0.133E-06
> >>> >>>>> 354 Es-253 2 0.392E-06
> >>> >>>>> 355 Es-254m 2 0.491E-05
> >>> >>>>> 356 Es-254 2 0.291E-07
> >>> >>>>> 357 Es-255 2 0.209E-06
> >>> >>>>> 358 C - 11 0 0.567E-03
> >>> >>>>> 359 N - 13 0 0.116E-02
> >>> >>>>> 360 O - 15 0 0.567E-02
> >>> >>>>> 361 F - 18 0 0.115E-03
> >>> >>>>> 380 Mn- 54 2 2.571E-08
> >>> >>>>> 545 I -129e 1 0.138E-14
> >>> >>>>> 645 I -129o 1 0.138E-14
> >>> >>>>> 745 I -129a 1 0.138E-14
> >>> >>>>> 547 I -130e 1 0.155E-04
> >>> >>>>> 647 I -130o 1 0.155E-04
> >>> >>>>> 747 I -130a 1 0.155E-04
> >>> >>>>> 548 I -131e 1 0.994E-06
> >>> >>>>> 648 I -131o 1 0.994E-06
> >>> >>>>> 748 I -131a 1 0.994E-06
> >>> >>>>> 549 I -132e 1 0.836E-04
> >>> >>>>> 649 I -132o 1 0.836E-04
> >>> >>>>> 749 I -132a 1 0.836E-04
> >>> >>>>> 551 I -133e 1 0.921E-05
> >>> >>>>> 651 I -133o 1 0.921E-05
> >>> >>>>> 751 I -133a 1 0.921E-05
> >>> >>>>> 553 I -134e 1 0.222E-03
> >>> >>>>> 653 I -134o 1 0.222E-03
> >>> >>>>> 753 I -134a 1 0.222E-03
> >>> >>>>> 554 I -135e 1 0.288E-04
> >>> >>>>> 654 I -135o 1 0.288E-04
> >>> >>>>> 754 I -135a 1 0.288E-04
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>> >>>>> CF-metadata mailing list
> >>> >>>>> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> >>> >>>>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> ----- End forwarded message -----
> >>> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>> >>>> CF-metadata mailing list
> >>> >>>> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> >>> >>>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
> >>> >>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> >>>> -- 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.
> >>> >>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> >>>> --
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>> >>>> CF-metadata mailing list
> >>> >>>> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> >>> >>>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> --
> >>> >>> Dr. Heiko Klein Norwegian Meteorological Institute
> >>> >>> Tel. + 47 22 96 32 58 P.O. Box 43 Blindern
> >>> >>> http://www.met.no 0313 Oslo NORWAY
> >>> >>> ________________________________
> >>> >>> 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.
> >>> >>> ________________________________
> >>> >>
> >>> >> ----- End forwarded message -----
> >>> >> _______________________________________________
> >>> >> CF-metadata mailing list
> >>> >> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> >>> >> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> > --
> >>> > Dr. Heiko Klein Norwegian Meteorological Institute
> >>> > Tel. + 47 22 96 32 58 P.O. Box 43 Blindern
> >>> > http://www.met.no 0313 Oslo NORWAY
> >>> > _______________________________________________
> >>> > CF-metadata mailing list
> >>> > CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> >>> > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
> >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> > 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.
> >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Dr. Heiko Klein Norwegian Meteorological Institute
> >>> Tel. + 47 22 96 32 58 P.O. Box 43 Blindern
> >>> http://www.met.no 0313 Oslo NORWAY
> >>
> >> ----- End forwarded message -----
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> CF-metadata mailing list
> >> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> >> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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.
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> CF-metadata mailing list
> >> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> >> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Dr. Heiko Klein Norwegian Meteorological Institute
> > Tel. + 47 22 96 32 58 P.O. Box 43 Blindern
> > http://www.met.no 0313 Oslo NORWAY
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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.
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --
> Dr. Heiko Klein Norwegian Meteorological Institute
> Tel. + 47 22 96 32 58 P.O. Box 43 Blindern
> http://www.met.no 0313 Oslo NORWAY
----- End forwarded message -----
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
________________________________
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.
________________________________
________________________________
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.
________________________________
________________________________
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.
________________________________
Any email message from EUMETSAT is sent in good faith but shall neither be binding nor construed as constituting a commitment by EUMETSAT, except where provided for in a written agreement or contract or if explicitly stated in the email. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the sender and do not necessarily represent those of EUMETSAT. This message and any attachments are intended for the sole use of the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, dissemination or distribution (in whole or in part) of its contents is not permitted. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20180124/55908ef9/attachment.html>
Received on Wed Jan 24 2018 - 10:10:47 GMT
