[CF-metadata] Fwd: Re: standard name proposal for CCMVal

[Martin Juckes]

Hello,

I'd like to respond to Jonathan's suggestion that the CCMVal names should use
atmosphere_moles_of_X instead of the proposed atmosphere_X_mole_burden.

It is not clear to me that atmosphere_moles_of_X is clearer in any way. There 
is nothing in the name which says it is not the mole_fraction. This would be 
clear to anyone who knows the standard name list in detail, but as far as the 
name itself goes, it is not unambiguous. There is the same ambiguity in 
atmosphere_X_mole_burden, but this has the advantage of matching existing 
usage in a broad interdisciplinary community (IPCC). I do not know why the 
report authors converged on burden as a term to refer to the quantity we are 
discussing, they could just have easily used "moles of X in the atmosphere", 
but given that they have I think there is a strong argument for following 
their example (though using atmosphere instead of atmospheric for consistency 
with existing practice in the standard name list),

cheers,
Martin

> 
> 
> What do you think of my suggestion, following one of Christiane's, to call
> it atmosphere_moles_of_X instead?
>