Dear Martin If I have understood it correctly, I think it is fine - just wanting to make sure. Thanks.
Best wishes Jonathan ----- Forwarded message from "Schultz, Martin" <[email protected]> ----- > From: "Schultz, Martin" <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 07:25:57 +0000 > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Proposal for new standard_names for biomass > burning > > Dear Jonathan, Philip, > > good point! In practice, I think that "expressed_as" means something > more general than "contained in" so that the "NOx_expressed_as_NO2" case is a > perfectly valid one. Indeed, that would be the standard_name that would be > used if "official" inventories were to adopt CF for their data (the US EPA > uses "short tons of NO2", for example). As Philip says, in our research > context we usually deal with "expressed_as_NO". Hence, I would advocate to > leave things as they are now and rework the definition only when needed. > > Cheers, > > Martin > > >Message: 5 > >Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2013 14:16:26 +0000 > >From: Jonathan Gregory <[email protected]> > >To: "Cameron-smith, Philip" <[email protected]> > >Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > >Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Proposal for new standard_names for biomass > > burning emissions > >Message-ID: <[email protected]> > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > >Dear Philip > > >> Jonathan: we already have std_names without a fixed ratio, although it > >> isn't explicit in the descriptions (eg, > >> >>atmosphere_mass_content_of_anthropogenic_nmvoc_expressed_as_carbon). > >> Indeed, this is one of the main > >>reasons people use the 'expressed_as' concept. > >> > >> I did note the tiniest inconsistency for the future. As proposed, > >> NOx_expressed_as_NO is consistent with the > >>current description "The phrase 'expressed_as' is used in the construction > >>A_expressed_as_B, where B is a > >>chemical constituent of A. It means that the quantity indicated by the > >>standard name is calculated solely > >>with respect to the B contained in A, neglecting all other chemical > >>constituents of A." > >> > >> However, in the future someone may want NOx_expressed_as_NO2, and NO2 is > >> not entirely contained in > >>NOx. To put it another way, the mass of the emission expressed as NO2 is > >>larger than the mass of the actual > >>NOx emission. > > > >I think your point is similar to what I was trying to say, but it might be > >that I don't understand this properly. > >I think nmvoc_expressed_as_carbon is fine. It just means we count up the C, > >never mind what compounds > >actually contain the C. I assume that nox_expressed_as_no means that we > >pretend all the N in the NOx is > >actually present as NO. Is that right? If so, I think it is well- defined, > >but it's a bit different from previous > >situations, where B is truly contained in A. C is truly contained in nmvoc. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Forschungszentrum Juelich GmbH > 52425 Juelich > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Juelich > Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Dueren Nr. HR B 3498 > Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: MinDir Dr. Karl Eugen Huthmacher > Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof. Dr. Achim Bachem (Vorsitzender), > Karsten Beneke (stellv. Vorsitzender), Prof. Dr.-Ing. Harald Bolt, > Prof. Dr. Sebastian M. Schmidt > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > CF-metadata mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata ----- End forwarded message ----- _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
