Dear Jonathan, Thank you for your suggestions to modify a number of existing names to achieve greater consistency across the standard name table. I agree completely that it is a principle worth pursuing!
To address the points raised in this thread so far: 1) sinking mole fluxes Jonathan wrote: > I think "sinking" and "downwelling" mean the same thing John Dunne wrote: > The two definitions have different reference frames - Sinking is a velocity relative to the fluid, > while downwelling is a velocity of the fluid itself. I had not appreciated this difference between sinking and downwelling. At the next update to the standard name table I will expand the definitions to include the following sentence: "A sinking flux is positive downwards and is calculated relative to the movement of the surrounding fluid." 2) inorganic_phosphorus|phosphate and inorganic_silicon|silicate We have agreed that in the recently introduced biogeochemistry names inorganic_phosphorus|phosphate are intended to mean the same thing, as are inorganic_silicon|silicate. It has been suggested that we standardize on phosphorus/silicon for these names. Just to double check, am I correct in thinking that 'dissolved_inorganic_phosphorus' essentially means phosphate (PO4)3- ions and 'dissolved_inorganic_silicon' means silicate (SO4-)4- ions? Or does 'inorganic_X' encompass other species beyond phosphate and silicate? If we are only really talking about phosphate and silicate then I am beginning to think that we should standardize on those terms rather than on phosphorus/silicon. And in those circumstances do we really need the 'inorganic'? Aren't phosphate and silicate ions inorganic by definition? That would mean creating aliases as follows: tendency_of_mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_phosphate_in_sea_w ater_due_to_biological_processes -> tendency_of_mole_concentration_of_dissolved_phosphate_in_sea_water_due_t o_biological_processes tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_dissolved_inorganic_phosphorus -> tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_dissolved_phosphate tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_dissolved_inorganic_phosphorus_due_to_ biological_processes -> tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_dissolved_phosphate_due_to_biological_ processes tendency_of_mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_silicate_in_sea_wa ter_due_to_biological_processes -> tendency_of_mole_concentration_of_dissolved_silicate_in_sea_water_due_to _biological_processes tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_dissolved_inorganic_silicon -> tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_dissolved_silicate tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_dissolved_inorganic_silicon_due_to_bio logical_processes -> tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_dissolved_silicate_due_to_biological_p rocesses The advantage of standardizing on phosphate/silicate rather than on phosphorus/silicon is that the most recent names will then be more consistent with existing names: mass_concentration_of_phosphate_in_sea_water mole_concentration_of_phosphate_in_sea_water mole_ratio_of_nitrate_to_phosphate_in_sea_water moles_of_phosphate_per_unit_mass_in_sea_water mass_concentration_of_silicate_in_sea_water mole_concentration_of_silicate_in_sea_water moles_of_silicate_per_unit_mass_in_sea_water. The existing names don't distinguish between particulate and dissolved species, so presumably they should be interpreted as encompassing both. If, on the other hand, we are talking about species other than just phosphate and silicate, then we probably should standardize on inorganic_phosphorus|silicon for the newest names and expand the definitions a bit. 3) elemental/molecular_nitrogen Jonathan has suggested changing the recently added biogeochemistry names to refer to molecular_nitrogen rather than elemental_nitrogen. This would affect the following three names: tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_elemental_nitrogen_due_to_fixation tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_elemental_nitrogen_due_to_deposition_a nd_fixation_and_runoff tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_elemental_nitrogen_due_to_fixation Personally, I would be happy with either molecular_nitrogen or elemental_nitrogen as both are very clear. I think the decision should depend on how these quantities are calculated in CMIP5. 4) sulfate_dry_aerosol and sulfur_dry_aerosol Jonathan asked: > What's the difference between sulfate_dry_aerosol and sulfur_dry_aerosol? Philip pointed out that sulfur_dry_aerosol only occurs in names containing the construction sulfate_expressed_as_sulfur_dry_aerosol and suggested re-ordering such names to read sulfate_dry_aerosol_expressed_as_sulfur. Jonathan has agreed with this suggestion and I also agree that the re-ordered syntax is much easier to understand. The following five aliases will be created at the next update of the standard name table: atmosphere_mass_content_of_sulfate_expressed_as_sulfur_dry_aerosol -> atmosphere_mass_content_of_sulfate_dry_aerosol_expressed_as_sulfur tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_sulfate_expressed_as_sulfur_dry_a erosol_due_to_dry_deposition -> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_sulfate_dry_aerosol_expressed_as_ sulfur_due_to_dry_deposition tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_sulfate_expressed_as_sulfur_dry_a erosol_due_to_gravitational_settling -> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_sulfate_dry_aerosol_expressed_as_ sulfur_due_to_gravitational_settling tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_sulfate_expressed_as_sulfur_dry_a erosol_due_to_turbulent_deposition -> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_sulfate_dry_aerosol_expressed_as_ sulfur_due_to_turbulent_deposition tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_sulfate_expressed_as_sulfur_dry_a erosol_due_to_wet_deposition -> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_sulfate_dry_aerosol_expressed_as_ sulfur_due_to_wet_deposition 5) large_scale and stratiform Jonathan asked: > What's the difference between large_scale and stratiform? I don't think there's any real difference! Historically, we seem to have used 'large_scale' for precipitation originating from large_scale/stratiform cloud and 'stratiform' for the cloud itself (the one exception being large_scale_cloud_area_fraction). In recent standard name table versions (12-14) we've introduced a lot more stratiform cloud names for cloud feedback studies related to CMIP5. There are only 13 names referring to 'large_scale' and it strikes me as being a modelling jargon term, so I propose to create aliases to change them all to use 'stratiform'. Do you agree? 6) surface_carbon_dioxide_mole_flux We have agreed that this existing name is ambiguous as to its sign convention and we think that it has generally been used as an upward flux into the atmosphere. We have also agreed that it would be useful to define fluxes in both directions. Jonathan has suggested making the existing name an alias of surface_upward_mole_flux_of_carbon_dioxide. I am uncomfortable about opting to add one specific direction to this name, which effectively changes (narrows) its definition, when we can't be certain how it has been used in the past. I suggest adding two new names of surface_upward_mole_flux_of_carbon_dioxide and surface_downward_mole_flux_of_carbon_dioxide and making surface_carbon_dioxide_mole_flux an alias of both. That way, any data written in the future will be unambiguous but we won't be imposing a (possibly) incorrect interpretation onto older data. What do others think? 7) surface snow Jonathan wrote: > > snow_soot_content -> soot_content_of_surface_snow > snow_thermal_energy_content -> thermal_energy_content_of_surface_snow > snow_temperature -> temperature_in_snow > liquid_water_content_of_snow_layer -> liquid_water_content_of_surface_snow > > "snow" can refer both to lying snow (a medium) and falling snow (a species). > Existing standard names generally use "surface_snow" for the former, but not always. I propose these changes to remove the ambiguity. > In the case of snow_temperature -> temperature_in_snow did you mean that it should be changed to temperature_in_surface_snow? I agree with snow_soot_content -> soot_content_of_surface_snow snow_thermal_energy_content -> thermal_energy_content_of_surface_snow liquid_water_content_of_snow_layer -> liquid_water_content_of_surface_snow and will create the aliases at the next update of the table. I am wondering about the interpretation of the existing names snow_density and snow_grain_size. I suppose these could equally apply to snow as a species or as a medium, but I wonder if they are primarily intended as surface snow quantities? Currently neither has any definition and I think we should try to give some explanation as to how these names are meant to be used. 8) water vapour partial pressure Jonathan wrote: > water_vapor_pressure -> water_vapor_partial_pressure > > This quantity is really a partial pressure, and making this change is consistent with the use of "partial_pressure" > for "carbon_dioxide" in other names. I agree that we should call this a partial pressure. I notice that this and a number of other water vapor names are missing any reference to a medium and although it's quite obvious that the medium should be air, I think it should be added to the names for consistency. Thus I suggest creating the following aliases: eastward_water_vapor_flux -> eastward_water_vapor_flux_in_air northward_water_vapor_flux -> northward_water_vapor_flux_in_air water_vapor_pressure -> water_vapor_partial_pressure_in_air water_vapor_saturation_deficit -> water_vapor_saturation_deficit_in_air 9) dissipation Jonathan wrote: > dissipation_in_atmosphere_boundary_layer -> kinetic_energy_dissipation_in_atmosphere_boundary_layer > > This change is proposed because "dissipation" alone is vague, and it makes the name consistent with other names > that contain the phrase "kinetic_energy_dissipation" referring to the ocean. I agree that the existing term is vague. I will create this alias at the next update to the table. 10)sea_ice_displacement Jonathan has proposed creating an alias sea_ice_displacement -> magnitude_of_sea_ice_displacement to make clear that sea_ice_displacement is a vector quantity and Thomas (the original proposer of the sea ice displacement names) has agreed. Therefore, this alias will be created at the next update of the standard name table. 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. _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
