Dear John, Jonathan and Karl, Thanks all for setting me straight! I see now that we are fine to stick with the tendency names as originally agreed.
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:cf-metadata- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Karl Taylor > Sent: 28 April 2010 00:46 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] CMIP5 ocean biogeochemistry standard names > > 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_mol > e > >> _equivalent > >> > tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_dissolved_inorganic_carbon_due_to_bio > l > >> ogical_processes > >> > tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_dissolved_inorganic_nitrogen_due_to_b > i > >> 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_biolo > g > >> ical_processes > >> > tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_dissolved_inorganic_silicon_due_to_bi > o > >> logical_processes > >> > integral_wrt_depth_of_tendency_of_sea_water_alkalinity_expressed_as_mol > e > >> _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_inorg > a > >> 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 -- Scanned by iCritical. _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
