Good point. Yes, we would like to have all the analogue names in mole units instead of mass units.
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 8:07 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Paul, John, Jim, > > Thanks for your replies. You say that mole fluxes are preferred by the > ocean community. We have these for carbon dioxide, molecular oxygen and > dimethyl sulfide. For the abiotic and natural analogues we agreed mass flux > names. (All have now been published in the standard name table). Just to be > absolutely clear - are you now saying that we need mole flux names for the > analogues? > > 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: James Orr [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: 18 May 2017 07:47 > > To: John Dunne - NOAA Federal > > Cc: Durack, Paul J.; Pamment, Alison (STFC,RAL,RALSP); cf- > > [email protected] > > Subject: Re: OMIP standard_name > > surface_downward_mass_flux_of_carbon_dioxide > > > > 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_e > > xpressed_as_carbon, kg m-2 s-11 (Omon, 163) > > > surface_downward_mass_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_abiotic_ > analogue_e > > xpressed_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
