Dear Markus, Dear List,
Thank you for your feedback.
> doesn't make much sense beyond archiving a model output field since
it doesn't
> describe any quantity that could be readily observed. Also, the mass
> concentration of particles containing chemical X is somewhat
ill-defined. You
> will find some traces of X in almost all particles of an aerosol
containing X -
> so where is the threshold for saying that a particle contains X?
I agree with you.
Thus, it might be reasonable to introduce a new standard name (I like
the one you suggested. My idea for a name was more complicated :-) )
mass_concentration_of_X_in_dry_aerosol_particles_in_air
for (partly) secondary particulate species, namely nitrate, ammonium,
mercury, chloride, particulate organic matter, secondary particulate
organic matter and sulfate. For these species (except for chloride)
there exists already a standard name like
mass_concentration_of_X_dry_aerosol_particles_in_air
I think (please correct me if I am wrong) that
mass_concentration_of_X_dry_aerosol_particles_in_air
was meant to describe the same. Maybe one could make an alias from it?
Regards,
Daniel
On 12.07.2017 14:32, Markus Fiebig wrote:
Dear Daniel,
thanks for posting this again, I missed your first posting during vacation.
Coming from the observation community, a name like
mass_concentration_of_X_dry_aerosol_particles_in_air
doesn't make much sense beyond archiving a model output field since it doesn't
describe any quantity that could be readily observed. Also, the mass
concentration of particles containing chemical X is somewhat ill-defined. You
will find some traces of X in almost all particles of an aerosol containing X -
so where is the threshold for saying that a particle contains X?
To me, it would make much more sense to have names of the type
mass_concentration_of_X_in_dry_aerosol_particles_in_air
This type of name is less ambiguous to understand, and describes a property that
can in fact be observed.
Best regards,
Markus
Am 11.07.2017 um 21:05 schrieb Daniel Neumann:
Dear CF-Meta Mailinglist,
I would like to advertise my long question from two weeks ago. Maybe there
were no replies because it was to long :-) . Excuse me if I should be wrong
with that assumption. The basic questions are:
What do these two standard names mean?
(a) mass_concentration_of_ammonium_dry_aerosol_particles_in_air
(b) mass_concentration_of_dry_aerosol_particles_expressed_as_ammonium_in_air
What should be the standard name for the mass concentration of atmospheric
particulate chloride/ammonium/nitrate/sulfate/...? Should it be like (a), like
(b) or something else (e.g. mass_concentrations_of_particulate_ammonium_in_air)?
Please find details on the question here:
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/2017/059573.html
Regards,
Daniel
On 27.06.2017 14:43, Daniel Neumann wrote:
Dear CF-Mailinglist,
in a recent proposal (link given below*), Alison and I discussed about the
naming conventions for the mass of specific aerosol particle components.
There seems to be clarification necessary in the descriptions and/or names.
[* recent proposal with discussion:
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/2017/059522.html, look for
"10. mass_concentration_of_chloride_dry_aerosol_particles_in_air (kg m-3)"]
Currently, there exist standard names like
mass_concentration_of_ammonium_dry_aerosol_particles_in_air
mass_concentration_of_dust_dry_aerosol_particles_in_air
general form: mass_concentration_of_X_dry_aerosol_particles_in_air
which describe mass concentration of aerosol particles that contain species
X. Thus, this standard name describes not only the mass of species X but also
the mass of other species that are associated with X on particles. In the
past, I thought it would describe the mass of species X only. We think that
there is a need for clarifying this in the description of these standard names.
When we now want to quantify the mass of particulate X only (e.g. mass of
particulate chloride, mass of particulate ammonium), we could use the
standard name
mass_concentration_of_dry_aerosol_particles_expressed_as_X_in_air
However, I see two problems with respect to this naming convention. First, we
get a not-nice name if we want to express the mass concentrations of
particulate ammonium in terms of nitrogen. We needed a standard name like
mass_concentration_of_dry_aerosol_particles_expressed_as_ammonium_expressed_as_nitrogen_in_air
which contains 'expressed' twice.
Second (but that is my personal feeling only), I use the "X_expressed_as_Y"
formulation only, when there is some relation from Y to X. Or in other words:
when Y is a reasonable measure for X.
...organic_matter_..._expressed_as_carbon...
...nox_expressed_as_nitrogen...
...phytoplankton_expressed_as_phosphorus...
Therefore,
"mass_concentration_of_dry_aerosol_particles_expressed_as_X_in_air" is not a
good choice for a standard name describing the mass of particulate X in my
opinion.
An alternative would be to introduce a standard name like
mass_concentrations_of_particulate_X_in_air
mass_concentrations_of_particulate_ammonium_in_air
mass_concentrations_of_particulate_chloride_in_air
What is your opinion on this topic?
Best Regards,
Daniel
--
Dr. Markus Fiebig
Senior Scientist
Dept. Atmospheric and Climate Research (ATMOS)
Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU)
P.O. Box 100
N-2027 Kjeller
Norway
Tel.: +47 6389-8235
Fax : +47 6389-8050
e-mail: [email protected]
skype: markus.fiebig
P Please consider the environment before printing this email and attachments
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
--
Daniel Neumann
Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research Warnemuende
Physical Oceanography and Instrumentation
Seestrasse 15
18119 Rostock
Germany
phone: +49-381-5197-287
fax: +49-381-5197-114 or 440
e-mail: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
