Dear Dave and Jonathan, I think we are clear now about the definition, so it is really a question of deciding on the best terminology. There is one existing name carbon_content_of_products_of_anthropogenic_land_use_change for which we will need to create an alias no matter which solution we choose, plus two new names proposed by Dave.
So the choice is between: (a) change the existing name to carbon_content_of_anthropogenic_product_pool and add new names tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon_due_to_emission_from_anthropogenic_product_pool mass_flux_of_carbon_into_anthropogenic_product_pool_due_to_land_use_or_land_cover_change OR (b) change the existing name to carbon_content_of_harvested_vegetation_products and add new names tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon_due_to_emission_from_harvested_vegetation_products mass_flux_of_carbon_into_harvested_vegetation_products_due_to_land_use_or_land_cover_change As long as we have the correct definition, I don't really mind whether we go for (a) or (b). Dave, do you have a strong preference? I think the main point to consider is which terminology would be most recognizable to land use modellers (and climate modellers in general). 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. > -----Original Message----- > From: CF-metadata [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Jonathan Gregory > Sent: 22 November 2016 18:32 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New LUMIP variables > > Dear Dave and Alison > > Ah, I see. What about harvested_vegetation_products? That seems a bit more > obvious to me than anthropogenic_product_pool. It is three letters longer. > Or even just harvested_vegetation? > > Best wishes > > Jonathan > > > ----- Forwarded message from David Lawrence <[email protected]> ----- > > > Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 11:06:47 -0700 > > From: David Lawrence <[email protected]> > > To: Alison Pamment <[email protected]> > > CC: [email protected], Jonathan Gregory > <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New LUMIP variables > > > > I agree about the soil water variable. Revised name is good. > > > > As far as product pools, Alison is correct. It is anything from harvested > > vegetation that is made into a "thing" and therefore the carbon is not sent > > straight back to the atmosphere or to the ground. The 'thing' that is made > > includes wood products and harvested crop yield. > > > > Dave > > > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 6:19 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Dear Jonathan, > > > > > > Thanks for looking through the LUMIP names again. > > > > > > > * mass_content_of_water_in_soil would sound clearer to me than > > > > soil_mass_water_ > > > > content, which I misread as "soil mass". It's fine for me but I note > > > that we > > > > used soil_moisture_content originally because it's always called that. > > > > So > > > > it was one of the cases where the standard name table used existing > > > terms, > > > > rather than more systematic ones. If Dave is happy with it we can rely > > > on his > > > > representing the land surface science community. :-) > > > > > > > OK, I hadn't realised the history of the name, but I think it is better to > > > refer to 'water' rather than 'moisture' as long as it doesn't confuse > > > people. I see what you mean about the order of the words. > > > mass_content_of_water_in_soil sounds good to me so, unless Dave > objects, > > > let's use that version. > > > > > > > > > > > * I understand better now what is meant by anthropogenic_product_pool > > > but I > > > > am > > > > not clear still. Does it mean things made by people out of wood? > > > > > > > Dave has suggested the following definition for anthropogenic products: > > > > "Examples are paper, cardboard, timber for construction, and crop > > > harvest for food or fuel." (Some models put crop harvest into a short > > > time-scale 'product' pool which is > > > > treated the same way (e-folding decay) as the wood product pool). > > > so I think it could be regarded as "things, including food and fuel, made > > > by people out of harvested vegetation". Perhaps Dave can comment further. > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
