Hi Alison,
If the column depth is time-invariant (in this case fixed as the
uppermost 100 m), then the time-derivative of the vertical integral
equals the vertical integral of the time-derivative, so the same name
can be used in either case.
Best regards,
Karl
On 27-Apr-10 11:56 AM, [email protected] wrote:
Hi Alison,
Following the example of the European intercomparison (CARBOCEAN?), the
intent was to have two sets of variables for inorganic C, N, P, Fe, Alk
and Si for a tracer equation integrated over the upper 100m such as:
dtracer/dt = Jtracer + tracer_physics
where:
1) Jtracer = the net biological source sink terms integrated in the
upper 100m in units of mol m2 s-1
2) dtracer = the time rate of change of the tracer(s) integrated in the
upper 100m in units of mol m2 s-1
with the calculation of dtracer allows the back-calculation of the
accumulated role of physical processes on the tracers.
Make sense? - John
----- Original Message -----
From: [email protected]
Date: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 8:10 am
Subject: RE: [CF-metadata] CMIP5 ocean biogeochemistry standard names
Dear John,
I was looking again at the biogeochemistry names in preparation for
adding them to the CMIP5 output document as accepted standard
names. I
am concerned that we may have given the wrong names to some of the
vertically integrated rates of change in the top 100m of the ocean.
Please can you advise on the definitions. Currently the names are
listed as:
tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_dissolved_inorganic_carbon
tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_dissolved_inorganic_nitrogen
tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_dissolved_inorganic_phosphorus
tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_dissolved_inorganic_iron
tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_dissolved_inorganic_silicon
integral_wrt_depth_of_tendency_of_sea_water_alkalinity_expressed_as_mole
_equivalent
tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_dissolved_inorganic_carbon_due_to_biol
ogical_processes
tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_dissolved_inorganic_nitrogen_due_to_bi
ological_processes
tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_dissolved_inorganic_phosphorus_due_to_
biological_processes
tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_dissolved_inorganic_iron_due_to_biolog
ical_processes
tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_dissolved_inorganic_silicon_due_to_bio
logical_processes
integral_wrt_depth_of_tendency_of_sea_water_alkalinity_expressed_as_mole
_equivalent_due_to_biological_processes
The first two names are defined as follows:
tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_dissolved_inorganic_nitrogen
'Net time rate of change of dissolved inorganic carbon in upper 100m'
and
tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_dissolved_inorganic_phosphorus
'Net time rate of change of nitrogen nutrients (e.g. NO3+NH4) in upper
100m'.
If these quantities should be interpreted as the time rate of
change of
the vertically integrated mole_concentration, then these names are
correct.
However, the remainder of the names have definitions along the
lines of:
tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_dissolved_inorganic_phosphorus
'Vertical integral of net time rate of change of phosphate in upper
100m',
which is clearly the vertical integral of the rate of change and
not the
rate of change of the vertical integral. I don't think those two
thingsare identical, are they?
If the order of the calculation is important then I think we should
adopt the pattern used in the alkalinity names for all these names,
i.e.,
integral_wrt_depth_of_tendency_of_mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorga
nic_phosphorus_in_sea_water, etc. Do you agree?
Best wishes,
Alison
------
Alison Pamment Tel: +44 1235 778065
NCAS/British Atmospheric Data Centre Fax: +44 1235 446314
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Email:
[email protected], Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
--
Scanned by iCritical.
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://*mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
