Dear John, Roy, Philip, et al., Jonathan responded (offlist) to John's latest suggestion by saying that net_primary_mole_productivity_of_carbon_due_to_nitrate_utilization fits more closely to existing patterns of standard names. It differs from Roy's suggestion only in substituting "utilization" for "consumption". John has indicated (also offlist) that he is happy with Jonathan's version. I think we have converged enough to accept this name for inclusion in the table.
For consistency, the other "new productivity" name should now be written as tendency_of_mole_concentration_of_particulte_organic_matter_expressed_as _carbon_in_sea_water_due_to_nitrate_utilization. This name is also accepted for inclusion in the standard name table. Thanks to all for the discussion - this means that all the proposed ocean biogeochemistry quantities have now been accepted. Best wishes, Alison > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 29 April 2010 14:10 > To: Lowry, Roy K > Cc: Philip J. Cameronsmith1; Pamment, Alison (STFC,RAL,SSTD); Keith > Lindsay; CF-metadata email list > Subject: Re: RE: [CF-metadata] BGC output for CMIP5 simulations (fwd) > > > Another suggestion would be > 'net_primary_mole_productivity_of_carbon_utilizing_nitrate'. I agree > that 'due_to_nitrate' doesn't really mean much in this instance given > that it is the phytoplankton that are the causal factor, not the > nitrate > per se. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lowry, Roy K" <[email protected]> > Date: Thursday, April 29, 2010 6:35 am > Subject: RE: [CF-metadata] BGC output for CMIP5 simulations (fwd) > > > Hello Philip/Alison > > > > Couple of points. > > > > (1) Radicals are more of relevance to the atmosphere than water > > bodies so I don't think confusion between them and ions is an > > issue. As standard names are becoming incorporated into URLs, the > > '+' character is best avoided. Also without semantic support > > (which is coming), very few datasets labelled 'NO3-' would get > > found as most oceanographers would search for 'nitrate' > > > > (2) > > 'net_primary_mole_productivity_of_carbon_due_to_nitrate_consumption' > or 'net_primary_mole_productivity_of_carbon_due_to_nitrate_nutrition' > would get around Alison's issue. 'due_to_nitrate' is simply lazy speak > for the process. > > > > Cheers, Roy. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:cf-metadata- > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Philip J. Cameronsmith1 > > Sent: 28 April 2010 23:04 > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: Keith Lindsay; CF-metadata email list; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] BGC output for CMIP5 simulations (fwd) > > > > > > Hi Alison, > > > > Thanks for your email. > > > > I am not an expert on ecosystems, and so will defer to those who are. > > > > I had assumed that the variable was for carbon production CAUSED by > > nitrate through some process, in which case _due_to_ seemed to me > > to be > > appropriate. > > > > Going back to your spreadsheet, I see that the description for > > net_new_primary_mole_productivity_of_carbon was 'Vertically > > integrated > > primary (organic carbon) production by phytoplankton based on NO3 > > alone'.So now I'm not so sure, and need guidance from an expert. > > > > Is this quantity just being calculated using nitrate as a proxy > > data > > source, or is it production caused by nitrate? > > > > BTW, we might consider replacing NO3 and NH4 in the description > > with > > 'nitrate' and 'ammonium', or 'NO3-' and 'NH4+', or making it > > unambiguous > > in some other way, that these are ions and not radicals. > > Admittedly, this > > is probably obvious to most people with some familiarity with the > > chemistry or biology, but we might as well be precise. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Philip > > > > On Wed, 28 Apr 2010, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > Dear Philip, > > > > > > Thanks very much for forwarding these emails to the list and > > sorry for > > > not picking up on this thread sooner. > > > > > > The standard names > > > > > > tendency_of_mole_concentration_of_particulate_organic_matter_expressed_ > a> s_carbon_in_sea_water_due_to_net_new_primary_production; > mol m-3 s-1 > > > net_new_primary_mole_productivity_of_carbon; mol m-2 s-1 > > > were accepted after discussion in the 'CMIP5 ocean biogeochemistry > > > standard names' thread. > > > > > > However, the name > > > net_primary_mole_productivity_of_carbon_due_to_nitrate > > > is now being proposed for the second quantity because there is some > > > confusion as to the precise meaning of 'new' production. > > > > > > As the accepted names have not yet been added to the standard > > name table > > > I think we could change them provided everyone agrees. Both names > > should> be changed to be consistent with one another. The phrase > > 'due_to' is > > > reserved in standard names for describing a process, e.g. > > > 'due_to_convection', so 'due_to_nitrate' doesn't really fit that > > > pattern. Would > > > > > > net_primary_mole_productivity_of_carbon_from_nutrients_containing_nitra > t> e > > > or just > > > net_primary_mole_productivity_of_carbon_from_nitrate_nutrients > > > be an accurate description? > > > > > > The first name could then be changed to > > > > > > tendency_of_mole_concentration_of_particulate_organic_matter_expressed_ > a> > s_carbon_in_sea_water_due_to_net_primary_production_from_{nutrients_con > t > > > aining_nitrate}|{nitrate_nutrients}. > > > > > > Perhaps John Dunne could also comment on these ideas. > > > > > > 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 Philip J. Cameronsmith1 > > >> Sent: 22 April 2010 00:05 > > >> To: CF-metadata email list > > >> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] BGC output for CMIP5 simulations (fwd) > > >> > > >> > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> It appears that the wrong email address for the CF list was used > > for>> some > > >> of the emails in the conversation below. Hence, I am forwarding > > the>> final email for the record. > > >> > > >> Best wishes, > > >> > > >> Philip > > >> > > >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ----- > > >> - > > >> Dr Philip Cameron-Smith Atmospheric, Earth, and Energy > > Division>> [email protected] Lawrence Livermore > > National Laboratory > > >> +1 925 4236634 7000 East Avenue, Livermore, > > CA94550,>> USA > > >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ----- > > >> - > > >> > > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > >> Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 13:15:39 > > >> From: Keith Lindsay <[email protected]> > > >> To: Philip J. Cameronsmith1 <[email protected]> > > >> Cc: [email protected], Ernst Maier-Reimer <ernst.maier- > > >> [email protected]>, > > >> Corinne Le Quere <[email protected]>, > > >> Bruce Hackett <[email protected]>, > > >> Thomas LOUBRIEU <[email protected]>, > > >> Laurent Bopp <[email protected]>, > > >> Pierre Friedlingstein <[email protected]>, > > >> James Orr <[email protected]>, Laurence Crosnier > > > <lcrosn...@mercator- > > >> ocean.fr>, > > >> Chris Jones <[email protected]>, cf- > > >> [email protected], > > >> Karl Taylor <[email protected]>, Yann BARZIC > > >> <[email protected]> > > >> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] BGC output for CMIP5 simulations > > >> > > >> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, Philip J. Cameronsmith1 wrote: > > >> > > >>> Hi Keith, et al. > > >>> > > >>> By no3 I assume you mean the negatively charged nitrate ion > > (NO3-). > > >> In which > > >>> case I recommend using 'nitrate' in the standard name instead of > > >> 'no3'. This > > >>> will then be consistent with existing standard names, and avoid > > >> confusion > > >>> with the uncharged nitrate radical (NO3). > > >>> > > >>> In looking at the standard name table I think it would also be > > more>>> consistent to use _due_to_ instead of _from_. The latter > > is mainly > > >> used for > > >>> physical directions, eg _into_sea_water_from_rivers, while the > > > former > > >> is > > >>> mainly used when when the quantity is changing _due_to_ another > > >> process, eg > > >>> tendency_of_air_temperature_due_to_shortwave_heating. > > >>> > > >>> Hence, I suggest you consider the following: > > >>> > > >>> net_primary_mole_productivity_of_carbon_due_to_nitrate > > >>> > > >>> Best wishes, > > >>> > > >>> Philip > > >>> > > >> > > >> Philip, > > >> > > >> Thanks for the feedback. Your comments are on target. I propose > > going>> with your > > >> standard name. > > >> > > >> Keith > > >> > > >> ****************************************************************** > > >> Keith Lindsay > > http://**www.**cgd.ucar.edu/oce/klindsay/>> email: > > [email protected] phone: 303-497-1722 fax: 303-497-1700 > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> CF-metadata mailing list > > >> [email protected] > > >> http://*mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata > > > -- > > > Scanned by iCritical. > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ---- > > Dr Philip Cameron-Smith Atmospheric, Earth, and Energy > Division > > [email protected] Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory > > +1 925 4236634 7000 East Avenue, Livermore, > > CA94550, USA > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ---- ------ 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. _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
