Dear John, Thanks for your comments on the iron flux standard name. Following your advice I think it makes sense to leave it as tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_iron_due_to_deposition_and_runoff_and_ sediment_dissolution.
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. > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 15 April 2010 14:05 > To: Karl Taylor; Pamment, Alison (STFC,RAL,SSTD) > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: FW: [CF-metadata] HAMOCC variablen > > > Hi Karl and Alison, > > With reference to Karl's question about the appropriateness of the > variable standard name for iron supply to the ocean, I was asked to > supply my thoughts. The current variable in the 4/2 tables is: > > tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_iron_due_to_deposition_and_runoff_and > _sediment_dissolution > > which, I think, works as a catch-all for all sources of available iron. > Due to the late timing, I think we are now forced to leave it to the > groups to contribute model-specific supply terms beyond this catchall. > My only suggestion for an optional change would be to make the long > names for nitrogen and iron, "Surface downward net flux of Nitrogen" > and > "Surface downward net flux of Iron" more consistent with their > definitions (as was done for Carbon) and changed to "Flux of Nitrogen > into Ocean by runoff, deposition and nitrogen fixation" and "Flux of > Iron into Ocean by runoff, deposition, coasts and sediments" > > Cheers, John > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Karl Taylor [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: 02 April 2010 18:50 > > To: [email protected]; Pamment, Alison (STFC,RAL,SSTD); Stephanie > > Legutke; [email protected] > > Cc: Corrine Le Quere; Ernst Maier-Reimer; Laurent Bopp; > > [email protected]; James Orr > > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] HAMOCC variablen > > > > Dear all, > > > > [Here is some input from someone with a weak grasp of this area.] > > This seems very confusing. It doesn't seem to me that it makes > > sense to > > > > talk about surface flux of dissolved iron (except in rain drops I > > suppose). We could have a downward surface flux of iron that might > > (quickly, partially or completely) dissolve. If there is some > > component > > of the surface flux of iron that never dissolves (as perhaps is the > > case > > for the iron contained in dust particles), then there really is no > > need > > to keep track of that iron (i.e., it is effectively "inert"). [I > > note, > > however, we are requesting a 3-d field tentatively referred to as > > > tendency_of_mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_iron_in_sea_water > _ > > due_to_biological_processes, > > which would indicate that there might be some flux of iron from the > > atmosphere that doesn't dissolve immediately, but might later at > > deeper > > depths.] > > > > As noted above I don't think it makes sense to call it "flux of > > dissolved iron", but would be o.k. with "flux of dissolvable iron", > > but > > this asks the model to know what iron will eventually dissolve, > > which > > seems impossible. But someone who knows more about this than I > > should > > weigh in. > > > > So first we need to decide what we want to ask for. Then we need > > to > > name it. > > > > One option might be to request > > > "tendency_of_mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_iron_in_sea_wate > r > > _due_to_surface_flux_of_iron" > > (or something similar). > > > > What say you all? > > > > Best regards, > > Karl > > > > On 30-Mar-10 5:55 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > > Hi Corinne, > > > > > > Good question! Given that we're bound to be using different > > solubility > > > fractions (mine are a climatology variable in space after Fan et > al, > > > 2006), I'd prefer the definition be renamed to "Surface downward > net > > > flux of dissolved iron", unless there are models that include > > subsurface > > > dissolution of dust, in which case I would suggest we add another > > > variable called "Surface downward net flux of total iron". > > Though I > > > would not want to fill this field for my model in order to avoid > > confusion. > > > > > > Cheers, John > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: Corinne Le Quere<[email protected]> > > > Date: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 4:17 am > > > Subject: Re: {Spam?} Re: HAMOCC variablen > > > > > > > > >> Hi John, > > >> > > >> I'm forwarding you a question from Stephanie Legutke regarding on > > >> the > > >> CMIP5 variable definition. The "Surface downward net flux of > iron", > > >> does > > >> that means soluble iron or total iron? can you please specify. > > Thanks. > > >> > > >> Best wishes, > > >> Corinne > > >> > > >> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Stephanie Legutke wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >>> Hi Corinne, > > >>> as far as I know you are in some sense involved in the > > specification>>> of the list of marine bgc variables that is > > requested for the CMIP5 > > >>> archive. > > >>> There is a question regarding the iron flux into the ocean (see > > >>> > > >> below).> Are you the right person to be addressed? If not you > > >> certainly know > > >> > > >>> whom to ask. > > >>> If you prefer the question to be formulated in English the best > > >>> > > >> would be > > >> > > >>> to contact Katharina Six who wrote the mail below. > > >>> best regards, Stephanie > > >>> > > >>> katharina six wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Hallo Stephanie, > > >>>> > > >>>> Bei einer Variablen sind wir uns nicht sicher, was gewollt ist: > > >>>> > > >> "Surface>> downward net flux of iron " > > >> > > >>>> Der Eiseneintrag wird aus dem Staubeintrag berechnet, aber > > fuer die > > >>>> Biologie ist es wesentlich, welcher Form das Eisens vorliegt. > Im > > >>>> allgemeinen nehmen die Modelle an, > > >>>> dass nur zwischen 1-10 % des eingetragenen Eisens biologisch > > >>>> > > >> genutzt>> werden kann. Fuer die Vergleichbarkeit des Outputs > > ist es > > >> also wichtig , > > >> > > >>>> ob angegeben werden > > >>>> soll, wieviel Gesamteisen oder wieviel "bioavailable iron" > > >>>> > > >> eingetragen>> wird. Falls du dazu naehere Informationen bekommen > > >> kannst, lass es mich > > >> > > >>>> wissen. > > >>>> Gruss Tinka > > >>>> > > >>>> Stephanie Legutke schrieb: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Hallo Tinka, > > >>>>> es gibt eine neue liste der verlangten variablen vom PCMDI > > >>>>> mit einigen neuen bgc variablen. > > >>>>> -- Scanned by iCritical. _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
