Hello Alison, Some (ended up quite a lot) comments. Any discussion of this lot could well descend into chaos. Could I suggest that responses are made separately to each of the 11 numbered comments so we end up with 11 threads that individually stand some chance of closure.
(1) I don't understand what the definition of picophytoplankton (carbon concentration from the picophytoplankton (<2 um; < 5um) component alone) means Does it mean cells between 2 and 5 um in size, in which case it should be expressed as 2-5um, or does it mean something else? (2) 'mole_concentration_of_miscellaneous_phytoplankton_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water' is a very imprecise term that I think needs specifying more precisely. Once the definition is tightened up finding a better phrase for the Standard Name should be possible. Likewise for 'mole_concentration_of_miscellaneous_zooplankton_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water', ' mass_concentration_of_miscellaneous_phytoplankton_expressed_as_chlorophyll_in_sea_water', . (3) 'mole_concenration_of_dissolved_iron_in_sea_water'. Besides the typo (concentration), does this refer to iron in all oxidation states (Fe2+/Fe3+) and chemical environments. If so, calling it 'total iron' might be better. (4) There are a number of standard names for elemental concentrations in the particulate phase where the long names are very familiar to me, but the Standard Names seem counter-intuitive, such as ' mole_concentration_of_particulate_organic_matter_expressed_as_nitrogen_in_sea_water' for the parameter commonly known as particulate organic nitrogen or more usually PON. I guess what is bugging me is that the standard name describes the primary quantity as the suspended particulate material (SPM) concentration, whereas in fact the chemical composition of the SPM is of at least equal importance. (5) I have much deeper rooted problems with ' tendency_of_mole_concentration_of_organic_carbon_in_sea_water_due_to_net_primary_production' for primary production. In a nutshell, the process of primary production involves the transition of primarily inorganic carbon in the dissolved phase into organic carbon in the particulate phase (in the form of plant cells). The standard name gives no indication that the organic carbon quantity change is in the particulate phase. At the very least I think we need 'tendency_of_mole_concentration_of_particulate_organic_carbon_in_sea_water_due_to_net_primary_production', which with the existing syntax form would in fact become ' tendency_of_mole_concentration_of_particulate_organic_matter_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water_due_to_net_primary_production'. Ditto for new production, biogenic iron production and biogenic silica production, but this doesn't apply to calcite and aragonite which are be definition part of the particulate phase being crystalline forma of calcium carbonate. Also affects primary production by phytoplankton groups such as diatoms (lines 53-57 of the spreadsheet). (6) I now see, 'sinking_mole_flux_of_particulate_organic_carbon_in_sea_water', which if for consistency with the POC standard name would need to be 'sinking_mole_flux_of_ particulate_organic_matter_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water'. Personally, I much prefer 'particulate_organic_carbon'. (7) 'tendency_of_mole_concentration_of_dissolved_iron_in_sea_water_due_to_scavenging_by_particles' should be ' tendency_of_mole_concentration_of_dissolved_iron_in_sea_water_due_to_scavenging_by_inorganic_particles'. 'particles' could easily be taken to include plankton. Similarly for ' tendency_of_mole_concentration_of_dissolved_iron_in_sea_water_due_to_dissolution_from_particles'. (8) When we come to integrated primary production the standard name syntax becomes ' net_primary_mole_productivity_of_carbon' instead of 'net_tendency_of_mole_concentration_of_particulate_organic_carbon_in_sea_water_due_to_net_primary_production' (which in itself needs revising: see above). I'm not sure how comfortable biogeochemists would be with the use of 'net' to signify depth integration. 'net' tends to have other meanings such as the result of competing processes like photosynthesis and respiration in oxygen budgets. I would much prefer 'depth_integrated'. (9) When we come to 'tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_iron_due_to_biological_production', there is no indication at all that the quantity is depth integrated. Ditto for lines 75-78, 86, 95-106. (10) 'surface_downward_mass_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon' doesn't indicate to me the that it's a flux from atmosphere to water body that's involved. It could equally well be a chemical flux between two layers of the atmosphere, or is 'surface' explicitly defined as the ocean/atmosphere interface? (11) Rows 95-106 refer to the rate of change of depth integrated values in the upper 100m of the water column, but the standard name gives no indication that it's depth integrated (see above) or that the region of interest is confined to the top 100m. I can appreciate the quandry here that standard names shouldn't indicate spatial coverage, but might it be possible to argue that the top 100m of the water column approximates to a layer (euphotic zone?) of the ocean that should be treated in the same way as layers of the atmosphere? Well that's it for now..... Cheers, Roy. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: 24 March 2010 01:23 To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [CF-metadata] CMIP5 ocean biogeochemistry standard names Dear All, There is a need to introduce quite a number of new standard names to describe the output which will be produced by ocean biogeochemistry models as part of the CMIP5 project. The attached spreadsheet lists the proposed name, unit and a brief explanation for each model output quantity. The list was coordinated by John Dunne and arises from lengthy discussions within the ocean biogeochemistry community. Jonathan and I have both spent time looking at these names and we have taken care to ensure that they are as consistent as possible with existing names and units. Comments on these names are now invited. Best wishes, Alison ------ Alison Pamment Tel: +44 1235 778065 NCAS/British Atmospheric Data Centre Fax: +44 1235 446314 Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Email: [email protected] Chilton, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K. -- 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. _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
