Dear Dave Thanks for entertaining this discussion. If the experts are unanimous then I will agree with you ... but not without one last try! :-) Google finds "anthropogenic product pool" only in your paper and this discussion, so it's not a well-known phrase. In your paper you say
Anthropogenic product pool is wood or food product pools so could you use the phrase wood_and_food_products for it? Best wishes Jonathan ----- Forwarded message from David Lawrence <[email protected]> ----- > Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 09:16:18 -0700 > From: David Lawrence <[email protected]> > To: Alison Pamment <[email protected]> > CC: Jonathan Gregory <[email protected]>, [email protected] > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New LUMIP variables > > I checked with Chris Jones of C4MIP and he argues for (a) and I agree. > > For the record, here is what Chris wrote: > > Just to be clear – we’re not proposing changing the short name (cProduct)? > Just the long name which is more descriptive? In which case I’m fairly > happy with either of those. I think in the community (a) is closer to what > people talk about. “Product pool” is a fairly common-usage term isn’t it? I > would perhaps shy away from saying “harvest” because that makes people (me > at least) think straight of crops, where here we mean wood harvest too. > > > In terms of the flux names, we tried to detail these in our GMD paper ( > http://www.geosci-model-dev.net/9/2853/2016/ ) so people could see exactly > what flux comes FROM and goes TO which pool. See our figure 6. Here we have > two distinct fluxes INTO the product pool (fDeforestToProduct and > fHarvesttoProduct). So again that would make me shy away from using > “harvest” to cover all of it. The flux back to the atmosphere is then > “fProductDecomp”, so the long name in (a) fits better. > > So to cut a long-story short! I’d vote for (a). > > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 7:52 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > > ----- End forwarded message ----- _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
