Paul and Allison,
I agree with John that the mole fluxes are prefered for ocean biogeochemistry.
Jim
On Wed, 17 May 2017, John Dunne - NOAA Federal wrote:
The ocean folks prefer the mole definition. There are atmos and land folks
that prefer the kg definition, but that shouldn't
dictate the ocean sheet.
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 7:30 PM, Durack, Paul J. <[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks Alison,
I will defer to Jim and John on this one. I think consistency is the
priority, along with making the data as useable
to the ocean biogeochemistry community as possible. I’m not sure what
their preference of units is – they can reply.
Cheers,
P
On 5/15/17, 5:39 AM, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Paul,
I've just had a look at the carbon dioxide surface flux names. Just
to clarify, for your name
surface_downward_mass_flux_of_carbon_dioxide, I suggested that we use the
existing name
surface_downward_mass_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon which
has canonical units of kg m-2 s-1. My
understanding was that the existing name would be suitable for your
needs. Is that correct or do you need a different
quantity? As you say, we also have an existing name
surface_downward_mole_flux_of_carbon_dioxide with units of mol
m-2 s-1 so you should choose the standard name with the appropriate units
for your quantity.
For molecular oxygen and dimethyl sulphide we have introduced
mole_flux names, however, we could also add
mass_flux names with units of kg m-2 s-1 if that is more useful for OMIP.
Please let me know if you need any additional names - these
quantities are quite straight forward so I think we
could just add them as necessary in the next update of the table.
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.
From: Durack, Paul J. [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 11 May 2017 20:49
To: [email protected]
Cc: Pamment, Alison (STFC,RAL,RALSP); John Dunne - NOAA Federal;
James Orr
Subject: OMIP standard_name
surface_downward_mass_flux_of_carbon_dioxide
In the large OMIP biogeochemistry request several carbon_dioxide
names were requested. Of these
surface_downward_mass_flux_of_carbon_dioxide was rejected, as
surface_downward_mole_flux_of_carbon_dioxide already
exists.
This relates to variables contained in the Biogeochemistry sheet -
https://goo.gl/Fyr6QW
The rejection of this name has led to the situation where requested
carbon_dioxide variables have different
units:
surface_downward_mole_flux_of_carbon_dioxide, mol m-2 s-1 (Omon, 162)
surface_downward_mass_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_natural_analogue_expressed_as_carbon,
kg m-2 s-11 (Omon, 163)
surface_downward_mass_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_abiotic_analogue_expressed_as_carbon,
kg m-2 s-11 (Omon, 164)
surface_downward_mass_flux_of_carbon14_dioxide_abiotic_analogue_expressed_as_carbon,
kg m-2 s-11 (Omon, 165)
surface_downward_mass_flux_of_carbon13_dioxide_abiotic_analogue_expressed_as_carbon13,
kg m-2 s-11 (Omon, 166)
surface_downward_mole_flux_of_molecular_oxygen, mol m-2 s-1 (Omon,
167)
surface_upward_mole_flux_of_dimethyl_sulfide, mol m-2 s-1 (Omon, 168)
I wonder if this can be reconsidered so there is some consistency
between the carbon_dioxide standard names and
their units.
Cheers,
P
--
LSCE/IPSL, Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement
CEA-CNRS-UVSQ
LSCE/IPSL, CEA Saclay http://www.ipsl.jussieu.fr/~jomce
Bat. 712 - Orme mailto: [email protected]
Point courrier 132
F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex Phone: (33) (0)1 69 08 39 73
FRANCE Fax: (33) (0)1 69 08 30 73
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
