Hi Alison, Thanks for following up! Some thoughts below...
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:00 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear All, > > Many thanks to all those who have commented in this discussion. I think we > have reached, or are very close to reaching, agreement on many of the > names. In this posting I have not addressed the "sea_surface" names which > are proving to be the only contentious issue - I will deal with them in a > separate message (to follow shortly). We need to raise the profile of that > discussion in order to reach a fair and timely decision. > > The link to the full list of names with their units and definitions is > http://cfeditor.ceda.ac.uk/proposals/1?status=active&namefil > ter=&proposerfilter=Durack&descfilter=&unitfilter=& > yearfilter=&commentfilter=OMIP&filter+and+display=Filter. The list has > been updated to show the latest status of the names. The next update to the > published standard name table will take place on 15th November when all > names marked as 'Accepted' will be added. Any names that are accepted > before that date will be included in the update. Another update will take > place in December. > > The numbering of the sections below refers to my previous summary: > > 1. The following names are now accepted for inclusion in the standard name > table. > > mole_concentration_of_bacteria_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water, mol m-3 > > mole_concentration_of_dissolved_molecular_oxygen_in_sea_water_at_saturation, > mol m-3 > > mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_silicon_in_sea_water, mol m-3 > > tendency_of_mole_concentration_of_particulate_organic_ > matter_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water_due_to_grazing_of_phytoplankton, > mol m-3 s-1 > > ocean_mass_content_of_dissolved_organic_carbon, kg m-2 > > ocean_mass_content_of_particulate_organic_matter_expressed_as_carbon, > kgm-2 > > mole_concentration_of_cfc11_in_sea_water, mol m-3 > > mole_concentration_of_cfc12_in_sea_water, mol m-3 > > surface_downward_mole_flux_of_cfc11, mol m-2 s-1 > > surface_downward_mole_flux_of_cfc12, mol m-2 s-1 > > 2a. Phosporus names > The following names are now accepted for inclusion in the standard name > table. > > mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_phosphorus_in_sea_water, mol > m-3 > > tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_phosphorus_due_to_biological_production, > mol m-2 s-1 > > In addition, the spelling has now been corrected in all 'phosphorus' names. > > 2b. Definitions relating to new chemical species > I agree with Roy's amendments to my suggested carbon13 and carbon14 > definitions. The new chemical species definitions for carbon13, carbon 14 > and sulfur_hexafluoride have been added to the appropriate names and the > following four names are now accepted for inclusion in the standard name > table: > mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_carbon13_in_sea_water, mol m-3 > mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_carbon14_in_sea_water, mol m-3 > mole_concentration_of_sulfur_hexafluoride_in_sea_water, mol m-3 > surface_downward_mole_flux_of_sulfur_hexafluoride, mol m-3 > > Looking at the carbon 13 and 14 names again, I suggest a slight amendment > to the following two proposals: > surface_downward_mass_flux_of_carbon13_dioxide_expressed_as_ > carbon_due_to_abiotic_component > surface_downward_mass_flux_of_carbon14_dioxide_expressed_as_ > carbon_due_to_abiotic_component. > I think these should be, respectively, expressed_as_carbon13 and > expressed_as_carbon14 rather than simply expressed_as_carbon. Is that > right? Up to now we have always used the generic term 'expressed_as_carbon' > in standard names which makes no distinction between isotopes but is that > precise enough for these names? > > I'm conflicted. Jim, please make sure I have this right... On the one hand the names Alison proposes are more precise, but on the other hand my understanding is that calling abiotic 14C "expressed_as_carbon14" is technically incorrect by giving people the mistaken impression that the absolute concentration should be correct when in fact modeled 14C is referenced to a 14C:12C ratio of 1.0 rather than the real world reference (14C:12C ratio 1.17x10^-12). I thought was chosen to minimize numerical issues. In contrast, my understanding is that the proposed 13C tracer is in fact simulated as a true concentration such that model delta13C should be referenced to PeeDee Belemnite (13C:12C ratio = 0.0112372)... I have not implemented 13C, so I am not sure this is right. In any case, it seems like a clarification description would be helpful. 2c. tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_[in]organic_carbon names > > I wrote: > > > > My question here refers to the following five proposals: > > tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_inorganic_carbon, mol m-2 s-1 > > tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_inorganic_carbon_due_to_ > runoff_and_sediment_dissolution, mol m-2 s-1 > > tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_inorganic_carbon_due_to_runoff_and_sedimentation, > mol m-2 s-1 > > tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_organic_carbon_due_to_ > runoff_and_sediment_dissolution, mol m-2 s-1 > > tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_organic_carbon_due_to_runoff_and_sedimentation, > mol m-2 s-1 > > > > We have a couple of existing names for tendencies of inorganic carbon > content, > > both of which are for dissolved_inorganic_carbon. Am I correct in > thinking that > > your names also refer to dissolved amounts? If so, we should include it, > e.g. > > tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_inorganic_carbon should be > > tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_dissolved_inorganic_carbon, and so on. > > John wrote: > > These terms are intended to allow users to construct a complete carbon > budget, and were not intended to distinguish between particulate and > dissolved. Should we restrict > the definitions and add more terms? add > "total" to the name before "inorganic"? Please note that the names listed > above with "sedimentation" are incorrect. As they are > > intended to represent loss from the ocean, they should not have > "runoff_and". Like in Paul's spreadsheet, they should just be > > "tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_inorganic_carbon_due_to_sedimentation" > and "tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_organic_carbon_due_to_ > sedimentation". > > These are effectively both "particulate" since they just represent > pelagic sinking in current models to my knowledge, though it is possible > that models might include insitu > > benthic organic production and/or inorganic precipitation which could be > represented as a dissolved loss. Of course, "sediment dissolution" would > be just dissolved, but > > runoff could be either particulate or dissolved... did you want to > distinguish between them? > > OK, thank you for the clarification. Since you intend to include both > particulate and dissolved carbon, the names are in fact fine (I just wanted > to check). In CF, an unqualified term is always interpreted as a 'total' > amount and if only a component is intended, e.g. dissolved, particulate, it > should be included in the name. > > Existing sedimentation names do not specify 'particulate' but it is > included in the definition using the following sentence: ' "Sedimentation" > is the sinking of particulate matter to the floor of a body of water.' Is > that adequate? If we included an additional sentence 'Some models may also > include insitu benthic organic production and/or inorganic precipitation', > would that be useful or would it just confuse people? > > You say that some of the names themselves are listed incorrectly, so again > just to clarify, is the following correct? > tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_inorganic_carbon, mol m-2 s-1 > tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_inorganic_carbon_due_to_ > runoff_and_sediment_dissolution, mol m-2 s-1 > tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_inorganic_carbon_due_to_sedimentation, > mol m-2 s-1 > tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_organic_carbon_due_to_ > runoff_and_sediment_dissolution, mol m-2 s-1 > tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_organic_carbon_due_to_sedimentation, > mol m-2 s-1 > > Yes. > 2e. Limitation names > Jonathan has suggested that we include the term 'growth' in these names, > to which John has agreed. Also, Jonathan is suggesting the use of our well > established "due_to" syntax for the solar irradiance names e.g., > growth_limitation_of_miscellaneous_phytoplankton_due_to_solar_irradiance. > I think this is clear. So the names would then be as follows: > > growth_limitation_of_picophytoplankton_due_to_solar_irradiance (canonical > units: 1) > growth_limitation_of_calcareous_phytoplankton_due_to_solar_irradiance > (canonical units: 1) > growth_limitation_of_diazotrophs_due_to_solar_irradiance (canonical > units: 1) > growth_limitation_of_diatoms_due_to_solar_irradiance (canonical units: 1) > growth_limitation_of_miscellaneous_phytoplankton_due_to_solar_irradiance > (canonical units: 1) > nitrogen_growth_limitation_of_picophytoplankton (canonical units: 1) > nitrogen_growth_limitation_of_calcareous_phytoplankton (canonical units: > 1) > nitrogen_growth_limitation_of_diazotrophs (canonical units: 1) > nitrogen_growth_limitation_of_diatoms (canonical units: 1) > nitrogen_growth_limitation_of_miscellaneous_phytoplankton (canonical > units: 1) > iron_growth_limitation_of_picophytoplankton (canonical units: 1) > iron_growth_limitation_of_calcareous_phytoplankton (canonical units: 1) > iron_growth_limitation_of_diazotrophs (canonical units: 1) > iron_growth_limitation_of_diatoms (canonical units: 1) > iron_growth_limitation_of_miscellaneous_phytoplankton (canonical units: 1) > > OK? > > OK > John asked a question about where the definition text should go - the > answer is that it resides in the published standard name table: > http://cfconventions.org/Data/cf-standard-names/current/buil > d/cf-standard-name-table.html (click on a name to see its definition). > (Almost) all standard names have definitions but they don't need to be > reproduced in the data files. Those wishing to access the information can > obtain it from a number of sources, namely the html table, the xml version > (which is actually the 'master' copy of standard names) > http://cfconventions.org/Data/cf-standard-names/current/src/ > cf-standard-name-table.xml or the NERC vocabulary server which is > developed and maintained by the British Oceanographic Data Centre > http://vocab.nerc.ac.uk/collection/P07/current/. > > Thanks, yes, now I understand. > John suggested some refinements to the wording of the definitions, so > taking these into account, my two examples would now be as follows. > > growth_limitation_of_miscellaneous_phytoplankton_due_to_solar_irradiance > 'Phytoplankton are algae that live near the grow where there is sufficient > light to support photosynthesis. "Miscellaneous phytoplankton" are all > those phytoplankton that are not diatoms, diazotrophs, calcareous > phytoplankton, picophytoplankton or other separately named components of > the phytoplankton population. The specification of a physical process by > the phrase "due_to_" process means that the quantity named is a single term > in a sum of terms which together compose the general quantity named by > omitting the phrase. "Irradiance" means the power per unit area (called > radiative flux in other standard names), the area being normal to the > direction of flow of the radiant energy. Solar irradiance is essential to > the photosynthesis reaction and its presence promotes the growth of > phytoplankton populations. "Growth limitation due to solar irradiance" > means the ratio of the growth rate of a species population in the > environment (where the amount of sunlight reaching a location may be > limited) to the theoretical growth rate if there were no such limit on > solar irradiance.' > > nitrogen_growth_limitation_of_diatoms > 'Diatoms are phytoplankton with an external skeleton made of silica. > Phytoplankton are algae that grow where there is sufficient light to > support photosynthesis. Nitrogen is a nutrient essential to the growth of > phytoplankton populations. "Nitrogen growth limitation" means the ratio of > the growth rate of a species population in the environment (where there is > a finite availability of nitrogen) to the theoretical growth rate if there > were no such limit on nitrogen availability.' > > Are these OK? > > Those look fine to me. > John, Jim and Paul, if you are happy with these names and sample > definitions then I think the limitation names can all be accepted for > publication. I will then construct definitions for them all, consistent > with the examples. > > One final note about these phytoplankton names: Roy queried whether we > have the best classification system for the different types of > phytoplankton, i.e. we are currently mixing size and species as ways of > delineating sections of the population. All I can say is that this is the > system that was first proposed for CMIP5 and is being used again in CMIP6. > Nothing else has ever been proposed. I agree that if new categories are > ever proposed we will need to take account of the existing names, and in > particular we may then need to think hard about the definition of > 'miscellaneous phytoplankton'. However, in the time honoured tradition of > CF, I propose to defer this discussion until such time as there is a clear > need to change what we are doing. I hope that's OK. > > Fine with me. > 2f. Natural/abiotic component names > > I confess that I have struggled somewhat to understand these names, > although it's becoming gradually clearer. I do see now that we need both > sets of names and that the "natural analogue" names are model diagnostics > rather than forcing conditions. > > In John's most recent posting he suggests names and definitions of the > form: > mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_carbon_natural_ > analogue_in_sea_water > Dissolved inorganic carbon (CO3+HCO3+H2CO3) concentration natural analogue > forced by preindustrial atmospheric xCO2 > > mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_carbon_abiotic_ > analogue_in_sea_water > Dissolved inorganic carbon (CO3+HCO3+H2CO3) concentration abiotic analogue > ignoring biological effects on carbon and alkalinity > > Certainly I think these names are a lot better and the terminology > "natural analogue" and "abiotic analogue" is useful. We need to think about > how this, or a similar, syntax will work in a standardised way with all the > proposed natural and abiotic names. For example, how would we rewrite > surface_mole_concentration_of_carbonate_expressed_as_carbon_ > in_sea_water_due_to_natural_component? Perhaps we could replace the > "due_to_X" in the current proposals with "X_analogue" at the end of the > name or we could prepend it with "X_analogue_of". This would mean that the > new names are consistent with many existing ones and would simply contain > an additional qualification, e.g. > [sea_]surface_mole_concentration_of_carbonate_expressed_as_ > carbon_in_sea_water_natural_analogue > or > natural_analogue_of_[sea_]surface_ mole_concentration_of_carbonat > e_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water. > > How does that sound? I prefer: [sea_]surface_mole_concentration_of_carbonate_natural_analogue_expressed_as_ carbon_in_sea_water > If we can settle on a syntax, then the definitions shouldn't be too > difficult to sort out. We'd need some explanatory words for the analogues, > which should include some information about when these names might be used > (for the benefit of the many CF users who will be totally unfamiliar with > the OMIP experiments). Based on John's text I'd suggest the following: > natural_analogue > 'In ocean biogeochemistry models, a "natural analogue" is used to simulate > the effect on a modelled variable of imposing preindustrial atmospheric > carbon dioxide concentrations, even when the model as a whole may be > subjected to varying forcings.' > abiotic_analogue > 'In ocean biogeochemistry models, an "abiotic analogue" is used to > simulate the effect on a modelled variable when biological effects on ocean > carbon concentration and alkalinity are ignored.' > > Based on the above, an example of a full definition would then be > something like: > surface_carbon_dioxide_partial_pressure_difference_between_ > sea_water_and_air_natural_analogue > 'The surface called "surface" means the lower boundary of the atmosphere. > The partial pressure of a gaseous constituent of air is the pressure which > it alone would exert with unchanged temperature and number of moles per > unit volume. The chemical formula for carbon dioxide is CO2. In ocean > biogeochemistry models, a "natural analogue" is used to simulate the effect > on a modelled variable of imposing preindustrial atmospheric carbon dioxide > concentrations, even when the model as a whole may be subjected to varying > forcings.' > > Any good? > Those look good to me. Thanks again for all your help, John > > Best wishes, > Alison > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: CF-metadata [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > > [email protected] > > Sent: 19 October 2016 19:16 > > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New standard names for OMIP biogeochemistry > and > > chemistry > > > > Dear Paul, Jim and Jonathan, > > > > Thank you for all the proposals for OMIP biogeochemistry and chemistry > names > > and the discussion that has already begun on these. > > > > I have created entries for all the proposed names in the CEDA vocabulary > > editor, available here: > > http://cfeditor.ceda.ac.uk/proposals/1?status=active&namefil > ter=&proposerfilt > > er=Durack&descfilter=&unitfilter=&yearfilter=&commentfilter= > OMIP&filter+and > > +display=Filter. > > At the moment, the names themselves are all shown as originally proposed > and > > I have added standard definition text for consistency with existing > names. > > Please use the link to view the full list of names and definitions as it > is easier > > than reproducing it all in an email to the list. > > > > I think a number of the names look fine and could be published in their > current > > form (see item 1 below). Paul and Jim, please can you check the > definitions that > > I'm suggesting for these names and let me know if you're happy with them? > > (Comments from others are of course welcome). > > > > For the groups of names where some discussion is still required my > comments > > are in item 2. > > > > 1. Names that I think can be approved, subject to checking of the > definitions. > > > > mole_concentration_of_bacteria_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water, mol m-3 > > mole_concentration_of_dissolved_molecular_oxygen_in_sea_water_at_saturat > > ion, mol m-3 > > mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_silicon_in_sea_water, mol m-3 > > tendency_of_mole_concentration_of_particulate_organic_matter_expressed_a > > s_carbon_in_sea_water_due_to_grazing_of_phytoplankton, mol m-3 s-1 > > ocean_mass_content_of_dissolved_organic_carbon, kg m-2 > > ocean_mass_content_of_particulate_organic_matter_expressed_as_carbon, kg > > m-2 > > mole_concentration_of_cfc11_in_sea_water, mol m-3 > > mole_concentration_of_cfc12_in_sea_water, mol m-3 > > surface_downward_mole_flux_of_cfc11, mol m-2 s-1 > > surface_downward_mole_flux_of_cfc12, mol m-2 s-1 > > > > 2. Names requiring further discussion. > > > > a. Phosphorus names > > Sorry that I didn't notice it when previewing the names, but I have > realized that > > 'phosphorus' is misspelled in the proposals, i.e., it should be > 'phosphorus', not > > 'phosphorous'. Subject to this correction and checking of the > definitions, I think > > the following names can be approved. > > mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_phosphorus_in_sea_water, mol > m- > > 3 > > tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_phosphorous_due_to_biological_product > > ion, mol m-2 s-1 > > > > I will also correct the spelling in three further phosphorus names which > remain > > under discussion due to other issues: > > surface_mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_phosphorous_in_sea_wat > > er, mol m-3 > > surface_mole_concentration_of_particulate_organic_matter_expressed_as_ph > > osphorus_in_sea_water, mol m-3 > > surface_mole_concentration_of_phytoplankton_expressed_as_phosphorus_in_ > > sea_water, mol m-3 > > > > b. Definitions relating to new chemical species > > It is usual to include a sentence in the definition when a standard name > refers > > to a chemical species. There are three new species/isotopes in the > current set > > of proposals. I suggest adding a single sentence to the definitions of > the > > relevant names as follows: > > > > carbon13: ' "carbon13" means the naturally occurring isotope of carbon > having > > six protons and seven neutrons.' > > carbon14: ' "carbon14" means the radioactive isotope of carbon having six > > protons and eight neutrons, used in radiocarbon dating.' > > sulfur_hexafluoride: 'The chemical formula of sulfur hexafluoride is > SF6.' > > > > OK? > > > > c. tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_[in]organic_carbon names > > > > My question here refers to the following five proposals: > > tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_inorganic_carbon, mol m-2 s-1 > > tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_inorganic_carbon_due_to_runoff_and_s > > ediment_dissolution, mol m-2 s-1 > > tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_inorganic_carbon_due_to_runoff_and_s > > edimentation, mol m-2 s-1 > > tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_organic_carbon_due_to_runoff_and_sed > > iment_dissolution, mol m-2 s-1 > > tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_organic_carbon_due_to_runoff_and_sed > > imentation, mol m-2 s-1 > > > > We have a couple of existing names for tendencies of inorganic carbon > content, > > both of which are for dissolved_inorganic_carbon. Am I correct in > thinking that > > your names also refer to dissolved amounts? If so, we should include it, > e.g. > > tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_inorganic_carbon should be > > tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_dissolved_inorganic_carbon, and so on. > > > > d. Surface concentration names > > There are a lot of these: 42 surface_mole_concentration names (units of > mol m- > > 3), 6 surface_mass_concentration names (kg m-3) and I'm also including 2 > > surface_sea_water_alkalinity (mol m-3) names and 3 surface_sea_water_ph > > names in this section. > > > > My concern about these proposals is that the names and units are not > > consistent. In CF standard names, "surface" means the lower boundary of > the > > atmosphere. It has no depth, so it is not meaningful to regard it as > having a > > mass or a volume. For this reason we can't assign units of kg m-3 or mol > m-3 to > > a 'surface' name. I assume that all these quantities are in fact "near > surface" > > values, i.e. representative of the top model layer, in which case there > are two > > possible ways to deal with this. > > > > The first solution is simply to remove 'surface' from all these names and > > instead use a vertical coordinate or scalar coordinate and coordinate > bounds to > > indicate the location and thickness of the layer. This has the advantage > that > > many of the required names actually already exist, without the need to > > introduce separate surface names. E.g, instead of adding a new name > > surface_mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_carbon_in_sea_water, > > you could use the existing name > > mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_carbon_in_sea_water > > accompanied by suitable coordinate information to describe your quantity. > > > > The second solution, if you do feel that it is necessary to have > distinct standard > > names for all these near-surface quantities, would be to follow the > approach > > used in some existing sea_surface names such as sea_surface_temperature > > and sea_surface_salinity. The names would then be 'sea_surface' names and > > there would be an accompanying sentence in the definition to explain > what that > > means, i.e. that it refers to water close to the surface. You would > still also need > > to include the coordinate information and coordinate bounds to fully > describe > > your data. With this approach the proposed name > > surface_mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_carbon_in_sea_water > > would become > > sea_surface_mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_carbon. > > > > Either solution would be consistent with the proposed units and I'd be > happy > > with either. Please let me know how you prefer to proceed. > > > > As a final point in this section, the three proposed surface_sea_water_ph > > names are dimensionless, but I imagine that these too are really > intended to > > represent the top model layer, in which case we should either drop > 'surface' or > > change them to 'sea_surface' names too. > > > > e. Limitation names > > Jonathan has already raised the question of what 'limitation' means and > also > > what measure of the various phytoplankton populations is being limited. > This is > > a new concept in standard names so it's important to get the definitions > right. > > > > John Dunne replied to Jonathan: > > > With respect to the limitation terms, we currently have the definitions > > explained in the "Resolved Comment" column as "Ratio of realizable > > miscellaneous other > > > phytoplankton growth rate under low nitrogen stress to theoretical rate > > without such limitation". > > > > So from this, my understanding is that nitrogen and iron are nutrients > whose > > availability promotes the growth of phytoplankton, presumably by being > > absorbed somehow into the organic matter, while solar irradiance is > clearly the > > energy source essential to the photosynthesis reaction. John's reply > talks about > > growth rate, so I assume that means the growth rate of the population of > a > > particular species (as opposed to the growth rate of individuals of that > species). > > > > Based on this I've attempted a couple of example definitions. If we can > agree > > these, then I can go ahead and add the appropriate sentences to all the > > limitation names. > > nitrogen_limitation_of_diatoms (canonical units: 1) > > 'Diatoms are single-celled phytoplankton with an external skeleton made > of > > silica. Phytoplankton are autotrophic prokaryotic or eukaryotic algae > that live > > near the water surface where there is sufficient light to support > photosynthesis. > > Nitrogen is a nutrient essential to the growth of phytoplankton > populations. > > "Nitrogen limitation" means the ratio of the growth rate of a species > population > > in the environment (where there is a finite availability of nitrogen) to > the > > theoretical growth rate if there were no such limit on nitrogen > availability.' > > > > N.B. For the irradiance names, I suggest we make them 'solar_irradiance' > to be > > absolutely clear. > > solar_irradiance_limitation_of_miscellaneous_phytoplankton (canonical > > units:1) > > 'Phytoplankton are autotrophic prokaryotic or eukaryotic algae that live > near the > > water surface where there is sufficient light to support photosynthesis. > > "Miscellaneous phytoplankton" are all those phytoplankton that are not > > diatoms, diazotrophs, calcareous phytoplankton, picophytoplankton or > other > > separately named components of the phytoplankton population. "Irradiance" > > means the power per unit area (called radiative flux in other standard > names), > > the area being normal to the direction of flow of the radiant energy. > Solar > > irradiance is essential to the photosynthesis reaction and its presence > > promotes the growth of phytoplankton populations. "Solar irradiance > limitation" > > means the ratio of the growth rate of a species population in the > environment > > (where the amount of sunlight reaching a location may be limited) to the > > theoretical growth rate if there were no such limit on solar irradiance.' > > > > Comments and suggestions for improvement are welcome! > > > > f. Natural/abiotic component names > > Thank you for the useful discussion that has already taken place about > the 22 > > proposed natural_component and abiotic_component names. I hadn't > > previously understood the details of how the OMIP experiments will be > run. > > > > Reading through the discussion, I agree with Jonathan that the > > natural_component names seem to be describing the forcing conditions for > the > > model, rather than being a separate set of diagnostics that represent the > > effects of some process within the model. Hence I agree that it isn't > necessary > > to define separate standard names with due_to_natural_component and I'd > > advocate leaving them out. Is that OK? > > > > I think we're agreed that the abiotic names are needed, and if I've > understood > > correctly we seem to have agreed to stick with due_to_abiotic_component > > because it works for all the names where it's used, including ph names. > Is that > > right? > > > > Best wishes, > > Alison > > > > ------ > Alison Pamment Tel: +44 > 1235 778065 > Centre for Environmental Data Analysis Email: > [email protected] > STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory > R25, 2.22 > Harwell Campus, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K. > >
_______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
