Dear Jonathan and Daniel, just to make an attempt to throw in my 5 cents here:
By definition, the term "aerosol" already means the system of the particles together with their carrier gas which, in this context of the atmosphere, is air. Thus, "aerosol_particles_in_air" includes the air twice. We may consider simply to omit the "in_air", and would end up with: mass_concentration_of_ammonium_in_dry_aerosol_particles That way, we'd make clear that only the particle phase is meant, but leave the option open for further additions such as "pm10", e.g. mass_concentration_of_ammonium_in_pm10_dry_aerosol_particles. Best regards, Markus Am 04.01.2018 um 17:44 schrieb Jonathan Gregory: > Dear Daniel > > I see. So the new names would be of the form > mass_concentration_of_ammonium_in_dry_aerosol_particles_in_air > I think that might be liable to misunderstanding. It could mean the mass > concentration of the ammonium within the aerosol particles, rather than > within the air. Your earlier suggestion > mass_concentration_of_particulate_ammonium_in_air > does not have that drawback. > > Best wishes > > Jonathan > > ----- Forwarded message from Daniel Neumann > <[email protected]> ----- > >> Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 22:46:55 +0100 >> From: Daniel Neumann <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Fwd: Re: Clarifying standard names for >> 'mass_concentration_of_*_dry_aerosol_particles' >> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 >> Thunderbird/52.5.0 >> >> Dear Jonathan, >> >>> OK. If experts are unanimous in their conviction that the existing names >>> will >>> never be needed for the meaning that they appear to have, I agree that they >>> should become aliases of the new names, which convey the correct meaning. >>> I'm sure this change could be made. >> Great. >> >>> Alison Pamment is in charge of the updates >>> as you know and I expect she will consider as it soon as she has time. I >>> think >>> that a complete list of the new and old names would be useful - that may >>> already be in one of your emails, perhaps. >> I didn't include a full list yet. I will create one and send it >> around the next days. >> >> After reading one of the past mailing list posts again and talking >> to a former colleague: it might be better to just include an "_in_" >> between "X" and "dry_aerosol_particles" in the new names (and maybe >> remove aerosol) instead of creating names like >> "...particulate_X_in_air". This first version with "_in_" is better >> expandable, when particle size fractions like PM10 should be >> considered in future (like >> "..._X_in_PM10_dry_aerosol_particles_in_air"). >> >> Thank you very much. >> >> Best, >> Daniel >> >> >>> Best wishes and thanks >>> >>> Jonathan >>> >>> ----- Forwarded message from Daniel Neumann >>> <[email protected]> ----- >>> >>>> Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 17:07:45 +0100 >>>> From: Daniel Neumann <[email protected]> >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Clarifying standard names for >>>> 'mass_concentration_of_*_dry_aerosol_particles' >>>> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 >>>> Thunderbird/52.5.0 >>>> >>>> Dear Jonathan, >>>> >>>>> I understand. That's tricky, [...] >>>> Yes :-) . >>>> >>>> >>>>> We could define apple to mean orange in >>>>> future, for the sake of the existing datasets, >>>>> but only if we are certain that no-one will >>>>> ever want to talk about apples. >>>> I am not aware of any situation in which someone actually meant to >>>> talk about apples. Markus Fiebig from the World Data Centre for >>>> Aerosols wrote the same >>>> (http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/2017/059588.html). >>>> I talked to two former colleagues, who confirmed it as well. >>>> Therefore, it is quite save to assume that nobody talks about >>>> apples. >>>> >>>> >>>>> We could just define and start using the new names, >>>>> and be aware that the CMIP5 datasets used the >>>>> wrong names (because the CF process somehow >>>>> made a mistake), without defining aliases. Would >>>>> that be acceptable? >>>> With respect to my personal usage of the respective standard names I >>>> am fine with just defining new standard names. I also see that it is >>>> the simplest solution for the moment considering the work effort >>>> needed to additionally define aliases. >>>> >>>> But, we might run into trouble (and cause confusion), if both >>>> standard names - apple and orange - are used to describe oranges. >>>> People, who used "apple" in the past, probably keep using "apple" to >>>> describe oranges because they are not aware of the changes. People >>>> who look up standard names for their new data sets might also end up >>>> with "apple" for describing an orange if "apple" is not marked as >>>> deprecated. Also people comparing data sets following the old and >>>> the new conventions (e.g. CMIP5 and CMIP6) might not be aware of >>>> this discussion. Hence, I would prefer to define aliases. >>>> >>>> Would it be feasible with respect to the required work, to define >>>> aliases for all the ambiguous standard names? How could I support >>>> this process? There seem to be 100 to 110 standard names involved: >>>> >>>> - atmosphere_mass_content_of_X_dry_aerosol_particles (15) >>>> - tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_X_dry_aerosol_particles* >>>> (78, maybe less) >>>> - mass_concentration_of_X_dry_aerosol_particles_in_air (15) >>>> - tendency_of_mass_concentration_of_X_dry_aerosol_particles_in_air (1) >>>> >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Daniel >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 03.01.2018 14:40, Jonathan Gregory wrote: >>>>> Dear Daniel >>>>> >>>>>>>> Is it feasible to rename all affected standard names? >>>>>>> It would be feasible (using aliases) but is it necessary? It seems to >>>>>>> me that >>>>>>> your question has identified that there should be a distinction between >>>>>>> e.g. >>>>>>> mass_concentration_of_particulate_X_in_air >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> mass_concentration_of_X_dry_aerosol_particles_in_air >>>>>>> for X=ammonium etc. These are different quantities: the former refers >>>>>>> to the >>>>>>> mass of ammonium only, the latter to the dry mass of the aerosol of >>>>>>> that type. >>>>>>> That is, we need new names for CMIP6, not aliases. >>>>>> Yes, there should be a distinction between both standard names. >>>>>> However, the latter name has been used as synonym for the first name >>>>>> up till now (e.g. in CMIP5 or in a data set I published recently). >>>>>> Additionally, the latter name has no real application - at least I >>>>>> am not aware of an application (neither for model nor for >>>>>> measurement data). Therefore, it might be reasonable for backward >>>>>> compatibility to use aliases. >>>>> I understand. That's tricky, because we've established that the second >>>>> name >>>>> is a valid concept but not correct. When we use aliases, it's because >>>>> we've >>>>> decided on a clearer, more consistent or more precise formulation of the >>>>> name, but in this case, it seemed that we called something an apple when >>>>> it ought to have been called an orange. We could define apple to mean >>>>> orange >>>>> in future, for the sake of the existing datasets, but only if we are >>>>> certain >>>>> that no-one will ever want to talk about apples. >>>>> >>>>> We could just define and start using the new names, and be aware that the >>>>> CMIP5 datasets used the wrong names (because the CF process somehow made a >>>>> mistake), without defining aliases. Would that be acceptable? >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes >>>>> >>>>> Jonathan >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 -- 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
