Hi Paul,
Jonathan Gregory and Paul Griffies jointly submitted proposals for
the OMIP physics names last year so they are already in my
workflow. I don’t think they attracted any comments on the mailing
list, so I guess it is up to me to work through them in my usual
way. I am half way through writing a posting to the CF mailing
list summarizing the status of all the remaining biogeochemistry
names. I am accepting names where possible, getting others to a
state where I just need you to give the ‘OK’ and they can be
accepted, and for the rest I am pointing up any final unresolved
issues so we can really focus the discussion on those. Further to
my email yesterday, there are actually 61 ‘surface’ proposals, so
clearing up that one question will allow about half the names to
be agreed quite quickly. Please bear with me until I have posted
my message to the list. I’ll then go through the physics names and
we can discuss those in a second thread.
I’m also in the process of looking through some non-CMIP
oceanography names for the NEMO model, and have just accepted a
bunch of wave names, so this is a good time to get as many ocean
related names into the table as possible.
Best wishes,
Alison
------
Alison Pamment
Tel: +44 1235 778065
Centre for Environmental Data Analysis Email:
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
R25, 2.22
Harwell Campus, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
*From:*Durack, Paul J. [mailto:[email protected]]
*Sent:* 22 March 2017 22:58
*To:* Pamment, Alison (STFC,RAL,RALSP)
*Cc:* Taylor, Karl E.; [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [CF-metadata] New standard names for OMIP
biogeochemistry and chemistry
Thanks Alison, this is great news!
I originally submitted 107 standard names for consideration
(mostly the biogeochemical and chemical domains). There are also
some physics (OMIP-physical, and FAFMIP) related names that were
also appended, so I’ll have to collect all these amendments and
then propagate them back to the google sheets where the master
list is contained. Martin can then read these revised inputs, and
the OMIP/ocean variable request will be updated.
What would be the best way for me to capture all the submitted (so
mine and the other separate ones) and then final standard names?
Thanks again for pushing on this!
P
*From: *"[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*Date: *Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 4:37 AM
*To: *"Taylor, Karl E." <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*Cc: *"Durack, Paul J." <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*Subject: *RE: [CF-metadata] New standard names for OMIP
biogeochemistry and chemistry
Hi Karl,
I think most of the OMIP names are in a pretty good state and some
are already published. There are probably more that can be
published quite quickly, so I will go through the list again and
accept as many as possible so they will be included in the next
standard name table update, which will be on Monday next week
(postponed from this week because of the Copernicus wave names).
The update will appear on the CF website on Tuesday.
There is one group of names where there is a question regarding
whether we need new surface quantities or whether we could manage
with existing names. I need to post about those separately as I do
feel the existing names should really be used, but some of the
OMIP modellers wanted new names, and there wasn’t consensus in the
discussion. I think it’s a straight forward either/or choice, so
it’s not something that should take weeks to discuss, but I feel
it needs to be highlighted again in order to respect the CF
process. It affects about 30 of the names from recollection.
For some time now I’ve been doing monthly updates to the table, so
anything that isn’t included in the March update can go into the
April one in another three or four weeks time. It is fine to go
ahead and start using names once they have been accepted because
they will then definitely be included in the next published
version of the table. So from the OMIP point of view, the main
thing is to make sure we can accept all the names. I think it’s
perfectly realistic to say we can get to that point in the next
two weeks, including reaching a decision on the
surface/non-surface names.
Best wishes,
Alison
------
Alison Pamment Tel: +44 1235 778065
Centre for Environmental Data Analysis Email:
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
R25, 2.22
Harwell Campus, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
*From:*Karl Taylor [mailto:[email protected]]
*Sent:* 21 March 2017 21:11
*To:* Pamment, Alison (STFC,RAL,RALSP); Jonathan Gregory
*Cc:* Durack, Paul J.
*Subject:* Re: [CF-metadata] New standard names for OMIP
biogeochemistry and chemistry
Hi Alison and Jonathan,
There appear to be 114 proposed standard names needing approval
before the OMIP data request for CMIP6 can be completed. (For a
list of these:
http://cfeditor.ceda.ac.uk/proposals/1?status=active&namefilter=&proposerfilter=&descfilter=&unitfilter=&yearfilter=&commentfilter=OMIP&filter+and+display=Filter
and eliminate 2 variables referencing "geoMIP").
There are at least 2 groups on the verge of running their models
and at the same time saving the data needed for CMIP6. There is
now a real danger that these groups will fail to include the OMIP
request (or rely on the current version of it, which is missing
some very important variables). It is therefore urgent that we
now approve the OMIP-proposed standard names immediately.
Please let me know how I can help make this happen. Can we set a
realistic deadline? Can CMIP6 just assume that all these standard
names will eventually be approved and finalize our OMIP data
request?
thanks very much for all that you are doing.
best regards,
Karl
On 3/16/17 11:15 AM, Durack, Paul J. wrote:
Hi Alison,
Sorry to nag, but I was just hoping to get some guidance from you
about finalizing these OMIP standard names.
If you can let me know what needs to be done, I’ll try and
prioritize this!
Cheers,
P
*From: *CF-metadata <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]> on behalf of "Durack,
Paul J." <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
*Date: *Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 12:36 PM
*To: *Alison Pamment <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Cc: *"[email protected]" <mailto:[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>,
Stephen Griffies <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>, "Taylor, Karl E." <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject: *Re: [CF-metadata] New standard names for OMIP
biogeochemistry and chemistry
Hi Alison,
I just checked the query of the OMIP standard name request at
http://cfeditor.ceda.ac.uk/proposals/1?status=all&commentfilter=OMIP
and it seems we still have some items under discussion.. How can
we kick these along to get them finalized so I can get the
information updated so Martin can finalize the OMIP/Ocean data
request?
Cheers,
P
*From: *John Dunne - NOAA Federal <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Date: *Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 9:59 AM
*To: *Alison Pamment <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Cc: *"[email protected]" <mailto:[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>,
"Durack, Paul J." <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>,
Stephen Griffies <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>, James Orr <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject: *Re: [CF-metadata] New standard names for OMIP
biogeochemistry and chemistry
Hi Alison,
Thanks for following up! Some thoughts below...
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:00 PM, <[email protected]
<mailto:[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&namefilter=&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/build/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_carbonate_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]
<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> Sent: 19 October 2016 19:16
> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]
<mailto:[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&namefilter=&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
<tel:%2B44%201235%20778065>
Centre for Environmental Data Analysis Email:
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
R25, 2.22
Harwell Campus, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
