Dear Philip,
Thank you, this is about what I meant in my email this morning to
Jonathan, but much much much better explained.
Christiane
Philip J. Cameronsmith1 schrieb:
Hi Jonathan,
I agree that 'water vapor in dry air' initially seems to make no sense.
But it is particularly useful in chemistry transport models that read in
meteorological data from a file (an off-line model) to use dry air in
the denominator for all of the species, and this is just the logical
extension for water vapor. Such off-line models generally do not
implement moist processes prognostically (I only know of one exception,
and that comes with different challenges). It is easier and more
accurate to transport species assuming an unchanging airmass. To really
get into dirty details: the unchanging airmass may be dry air, or it may
implicitly include some unchanging water vapor concentration, but the
distinction is usually unimportant in practice (because this error is
generally small compared to concentration differences between different
models, and observations).
Best wishes,
Philip
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
Dear Alison
Ah, now I see. I found that confusing, though. If I read "fraction of
A in B"
I'd assume that A is a subset of B e.g. I assume that mass fraction of
fat
in cream means fat/cream, not fat/(cream-fat), and mole fraction of
nitrogen
in air means nitrogen/air. If I read "mass fraction of fat in fat-free
yoghurt"
I would be confused in the same way as I was about "mass fraction of
water
vapor in dry air".
I agree that your definition is exactly what humidity mixing ratio means.
Here's a more explicit statement of what it means:
mass_ratio_of_water_vapor_to_dry_air_in_air
But would it be acceptable to stick with humidity_mixing_ratio and
regard it
as an exceptional name? It does seem like a good idea to avoid "mass
mixing
ratio" in general as it is not consistently used regarding the
denominator.
We already have mole_fraction_of_water_vapor_in_air in the table and we
could certainly also introduce mass_fraction_of_water_vapor_in_air
which, using the same definitions of A and B as before, would mean
simply A/B.
Yes. If we need that quantity, it would be the logical name.
If we use 'ambient air' instead of just 'air' in this case
then we ought really to change all the mass|mole_fraction_of_X_in_air
names to be consistent. That would mean creating 104 aliases.
Personally, I'm not convinced of the need for this. ...
So I would vote for continuing to use 'air' to mean moist/ambient air
and 'dry_air' to mean air excluding water vapor.
OK.
Best wishes
Jonathan
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http:// mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Philip Cameron-Smith Atmospheric, Earth, and Energy Division
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
+1 925 4236634 7000 East Avenue, Livermore, CA94550, USA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
--
======================================================================
Christiane Textor
Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement
Unite Mixte de Recherche CEA-CNRS-UVSQ
LSCE/IPSL, CEA Saclay, Orme des Merisiers,
Bat. 701, Piece 3b, Point Courrier 129
F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex
FRANCE
mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel ++33 1 69 08 34 07 Fax ++33 1 69 08 77 16
GEOmon scientific coordinator http://www.geomon.eu
======================================================================
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
