Dear Martin

If the new terms are calculated by extra radiation calls, could they be
phrased with "assuming", like the clear-sky ones?

Cheers

Jonathan

----- Forwarded message from Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC 
<[email protected]> -----

> Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 11:18:05 +0000
> From: Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC <[email protected]>
> To: Karl Taylor <[email protected]>, Jonathan Gregory
>       <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
>       <[email protected]>
> CC: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] PMIP: standard names for the CMIP6 data request:
>       tws, lighning flashes, wetland emissions, etc
> 
> Dear Karl,
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware of the rule (2) you refer to .. there may be a number of other 
> terms that need to be reconsidered if we intend to impose this.
> 
> 
> There is a disagreement between Jonathan and yourself about he nature of the 
> clear sky radiative fluxes: Jonathan has expressed the opinion that the clear 
> sky fluxes are, like the proposed "due_to_ambient_aerosol_.." terms, 
> calculated by running the radiative transfer module in a diagnostic model. 
> This view is supported by the Ghan 2013 paper 
> (https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/9971/2013/acp-13-9971-2013.pdf ) which 
> describes the relationship between the clear sky fluxes and a new set of 
> "clean-clear-sky" diagnostics. New standard names for these "clean-clear-sky" 
> fluxes have been in the CF Editor for some time (e.g. 
> downwelling_shortwave_flux_in_air_assuming_clean_clear_sky -- 
> http://cfeditor.ceda.ac.uk/proposal/1488 ).
> 
> 
> If Jonathan is correct, then the proposed new terms are consistent with the 
> approach used for clear sky fluxes,
> 
> 
> regards,
> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Karl Taylor <[email protected]>
> Sent: 18 May 2018 17:18
> To: Juckes, Martin (STFC,RAL,RALSP)
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] PMIP: standard names for the CMIP6 data request: 
> tws, lighning flashes, wetland emissions, etc
> 
> Hi Martin and Jonathan,
> 
> That is my understanding too, it is a extra calculation done at run time 
> purely for diagnostic purposes; it  may not be required in performing a 
> simulation.  So this puts it in a category between:
> 
> 1)  A simple change in a variable from one simulation of a coupled model to 
> another (e.g., the difference in temperature between a "historical" run and a 
> control run).  We generally do not assign a new standard_name for such 
> differences.
> 
> and
> 
> 2)   Prognostic and diagnostic variables calculated during run time and 
> needed in order to run the model or to compare the model with observations.  
> We generally do assign specific standard_names to each of these quantities.
> 
> The proposal is to relax rule 2) to include additional diagnostic quantities. 
>     If we want to consider a difference between two calculations performed by 
> a model (in this case a radiation code), does it warrant a new standard_name?
> 
> In the CMIP6 archive we must surely assign it a different variable name (for 
> uniqueness), and I would think we would give it a nice descriptive long name 
> indicating the information about what it is (e.g., "due to"), but there is no 
> fundamental reason to assign it a unique standard_name, and I wonder if we 
> should draw the line as described in 2) above.
> 
> There is precedence for *not* assigning a new standard name for a diagnostic 
> quantity not needed to run the model.  In the CMIP6 request, we ask for
> 
> variable name            standard_name                                 
> long_name
> -------------------         -------------------------                         
>  --------------------------
> clt                             cloud_area_fraction               Total Cloud 
> Cover Percentage
> cltcalipso                  cloud_area_fraction               CALIPSO Total 
> Cloud Cover Percentage
> 
> best regards,
> Karl
> 
> 
> On 5/18/18 7:38 AM, Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC wrote:
> 
> Dear Jonathan,
> 
> 
> I believe that they are repeat calculations in the model, as you suggest. 
> They have been requested for PMIP by Yves Balkanski, so Yves may be able to 
> comment more on this point (the question refers to swsrfasdust and related 
> variables),
> 
> 
> regards,
> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: CF-metadata 
> <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> 
> on behalf of Jonathan Gregory 
> <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>
> Sent: 18 May 2018 13:31
> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> Subject: [CF-metadata] PMIP: standard names for the CMIP6 data request: tws, 
> lighning flashes, wetland emissions, etc
> 
> Dear Martin and Karl
> 
> 
> 
> In CMIP6, we want, for each experiment, surface net downward longwave flux 
> (rls) and the two aerosol sub-components, surface net downward longwave flux 
> due to the ambient aerosol direct effect and surface net downward longwave 
> flux due to dust in clear sky. I feel that this falls comfortably into the 
> existing usage for the "due_to" construction.
> 
> 
> I agree that if these fluxes mean the part of the net downward flux LW flux
> that is emitted by the ambient aerosol or by the dust you could say it was
> "due to". How are they calculated? Are there repeated radiation calculations
> in the model, like for the clear-sky fluxes?
> 
> Best wishes
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Karl Taylor <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>
> Sent: 17 May 2018 15:58
> To: Juckes, Martin (STFC,RAL,RALSP); Pamment, Alison (STFC,RAL,RALSP); 
> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; 
> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> Cc: Jean-Yves Peterschmitt
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] PMIP: standard names for the CMIP6 data request: 
> tws, lighning flashes, wetland emissions, etc
> 
> Dear Alison, Martin, and all
> 
> On the last point commented on by Martin:
> 
> "4.3-4.7 Perturbed radiation calculations"
> 
> I wonder if it is wise to assign a new name every time experiment
> conditions change.  I would limit names to quantities that are
> calculated independently by a physics model or that can be measured
> more-or-less directly using instruments.  A quantity that is obtained by
> subtraction or by redoing a calculation with altered conditions could be
> described as being "due to X" where X is whatever condition was changed,
> but I'm afraid these names will multiply endlessly.
> 
> I think it is fine that we include "clear-sky fluxes of radiation"
> because they are both measured and must be calculated as part of a
> normal radiation calculation.
> 
> I would be unhappy with "temperature_change_due_to_greenhouse_gases" and
> 'temperature_change_due_to_aerosols" and
> "temperature_change_due_to_solar_variability", etc. Each of these can be
> obtained by carefully designed experiments and they do contribute
> individually to the total temperature change found in a historical run,
> but it in all cases I think the standard_name (air_temperature, or
> surface_air_temperature) should identify the quantity.
> 
> Similarly, I would leave out "due to ..." in the definitions proposed.
> [I realize this is a judgement call about where to draw the line.]
> 
> best regards,
> Karl
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/17/18 2:54 AM, Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC wrote:
> 
> 
> Dear Alison,
> 
> 
> Thanks .. some answers and comments below. I've copied Yves Balkanski in to 
> comment on the dust deposition parameters (4.1-4.2) [Yves, this discussion is 
> trying clarify the definition of parameters depdust anf sedustCI, and to 
> define appropriate standard names for these variables].
> 
> 
> 1.1 I’m waiting for some feedback from LS3MIP to clarify intention regarding 
> land ice;
> 
> 
> 1.2 Thanks, frequency_of_lightning_flashes_per_unit_area (m-2 s-1) and 
> propsoed definition are good;
> 
> 
> 2.1 
> surface_net_upward_mass_flux_of_methane_due_to_emission_from_wetland_biological_processes
>  (kg m-2 s-1) and proposed definition are good;
> 
> 
> 3 Stratospheric depths: thanks.
> 
> 
> 4.1-4.2 Dust deposition
> 
> I’ve checked the initial request from PMIP and it now looks clear to me that 
> the dry aerosol mass flux is wanted for these variables. I’ve copied Yves 
> Balkanski in to this discussion, as he specified these parameters for PMIP 
> and may wish to comment. For mass budgets of aerosol amounts it makes more 
> sense to deal with dry aerosol fluxes, rather than ambient mass which depends 
> on local conditions. The definition of “dry aerosol” is, I believe, intended 
> to refer to aerosol propoerties applied to aerosol particles which have been 
> dehydrated, either physically or conceptually, in order to make the required 
> measurement, not to aerosols which are naturally free of moisture in the 
> atmosphere. I accept your other suggestions, hence
> 
> 4.1: 
> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_dust_dry_aerosol_particles_due_to_deposition
>  (kg m-2 s-1) [depdust]
> 
> 4.2: 
> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_insoluble_dust_dry_aerosol_particles_due_to_deposition
>  (kg m-2 s-1) [sedustCI]
> 
> 4.3-4.7 Perturbed radiation calculations
> 
> As I understand it, terms or the form radiative flux due to X refer to the 
> result of a perturbed radiation calculation, with other factors, such as 
> atmospheric and surface temperature and reflectivity held constant. Hence, 
> the upwelling longwave flux will be unchanged, as you suggest, but not the 
> upwelling shortwave flux: the upwelling flux will change when the downwelling 
> flux is modified by changing the radiation calculation. There is a slight 
> problem with the approach here, in that the "due_to_X" construction is 
> intended to be used to distinguish contributions from different processes 
> "X", but "ambient_aerosol" is not strictly a process: the process is ambient 
> aerosol contributions to the radiative transfer calculations.   In proposing 
> these names I stayed with the compact form, which has been used previously, 
> rather than trying to expand to indicate the process itself explicitly in the 
> standard name. The questions raised here make me wonder whether we should be 
> more expansive. In the scientific literature the terms "direct effect" and 
> "indirect effect" are now well established, with "direct effect" referring to 
> the impact of aerosol on the radiative transfer calculation through 
> scattering and absorbtion. The indirect effect refers to other changes caused 
> by aerosol through processes such as cloud seeding. Hence, I suggest sticking 
> with the "net_downward" formulation (it is required for shortwave, and using 
> the same approach for longwave looks neater to me), and appending 
> "direct_effect":
> 4.3 
> surface_net_downward_longwave_flux_in_air_due_to_ambient_aerosol_direct_effect
>  (W m-2)
> 4.4 
> surface_net_downward_longwave_flux_in_air_due_to_dust_ambient_aerosol_direct_effect_assuming_clear_sky
>  (W m-2)
> 4.6 
> surface_net_downward_shortwave_flux_in_air_due_to_ambient_aerosol_direct_effect
>  (W m-2)
> 4.7 
> surface_net_downward_shortwave_flux_in_air_due_to_dust_ambient_aerosol_direct_effect_assuming_clear_sky
>  (W m-2)
> Regards,
> 
> Martin
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Pamment, Alison (STFC,RAL,RALSP)
> Sent: 14 May 2018 16:21
> To: Pamment, Alison (STFC,RAL,RALSP); Juckes, Martin (STFC,RAL,RALSP); 
> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> Cc: Jean-Yves Peterschmitt
> Subject: RE: PMIP: standard names for the CMIP6 data request: tws, lighning 
> flashes, wetland emissions, etc
> 
> Dear Martin and Jonathan,
> 
> While going through the VolMIP names I realised I had made a mistake in some 
> of my suggestions for this group of PMIP names. I suggested 4.3, 4.4, 4.6 and 
> 4.7 should not be surface_net_downward_fluxes but simply surface_downward 
> ones. If we agree on this approach they should actually say downwelling, not 
> downward, so they would be
> 4.3 surface_downwelling_longwave_flux_in_air_due_to_ambient_aerosol (W m-2)
> 4.4 
> surface_downwelling_longwave_flux_in_air_due_to_dust_ambient_aerosol_assuming_clear_sky
>  (W m-2)
> 4.6 surface_downwelling_shortwave_flux_in_air_due_to_ambient_aerosol (W m-2)
> 4.7 
> surface_downwelling_shortwave_flux_in_air_due_to_dust_ambient_aerosol_assuming_clear_sky
>  (W m-2)
> and the definitions would need to be adjusted accordingly.
> 
> Best wishes,
> Alison
> 
> ------
> Alison Pamment                                 Tel: +44 1235 778065
> NCAS/Centre for Environmental Data Archival    Email: 
> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> R25, 2.22
> Harwell Oxford, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CF-metadata 
> <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> 
> On Behalf Of Alison Pamment - UKRI STFC
> Sent: 14 May 2018 08:47
> To: Juckes, Martin (STFC,RAL,RALSP) 
> <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; 
> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> Cc: Jean-Yves Peterschmitt 
> <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] PMIP: standard names for the CMIP6 data request: 
> tws, lighning flashes, wetland emissions, etc
> 
> Dear Martin and Jonathan,
> 
> Thank you for proposing this set of names and for the comments received so 
> far. The proposals look good - I have accepted a couple that seem straight 
> forward and I think we can agree the rest quite quickly. Please have a look 
> through my comments on the individual names and let me know what you think.
> 
> 
> 
> (1.1) CMIP6 short name mrtws. Terrestrial Water Storage
> land_based_water_amount (kg m-2) 'The quantity with standard name
> land_based_water_amount, often known as "Terrestrial Water Storage",
> includes surface water (water in rivers, wetlands, lakes, snow, vegetation 
> and reservoirs) and subsurface water (soil moisture, groundwater).'
> 
> 
> Jonathan has suggested land_water_amount for consistency with land_ice names. 
> I agree this is a good idea, especially if the term "land water" is already 
> in general use. Regarding the definition, it seems we should also include at 
> least some elements of land_ice within land_water, but there is a question as 
> to whether this would also include floating ice shelves and/or ice sheets.
> 
> This name is still under discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> (1.2) CMIP6 short name Flashrate. Lightning flash rate cf.
> number_of_icebergs_per_unit_area; number_of_observations There are no
> standard names for frequency of events, but we can adapt the "number_of_" 
> construction.
> 
> Proposed name:
> frequency_of_lightning_flash_per_unit_area (km-2 s-1) 'A lightning
> flash is a compound event, usually consists of several discharges.'
> 
> 
> Jonathan has suggested, and Martin has agreed to, 
> frequency_of_lightning_flashes_per_unit_area. I agree that name looks fine. I 
> think the canonical units should probably by m-2 s-1, and I've added a 
> sentence about frequency to the definition:
> 
> frequency_of_lightning_flashes_per_unit_area (m-2 s-1) 'A lightning flash is 
> a compound event, usually consisting of several discharges. Frequency is the 
> number of oscillations of a wave, or the number of occurrences of an event, 
> per unit time.'
> 
> Is this okay? This name is still under discussion.
> 
> 2. Wetland parameters
> ===================
> 
> 
> 
> (2.1) wetlandCH4 Grid averaged methane emissions from wetlands
> surface_upward_mass_flux_of_methane_due_to_emission_from_wetland_biolo
> gical_production is recently approved. In other existing names we have
> "biological_processes" to cover production and consumption. The CF
> area type table now includes the area type "wetland". This term is
> intended to be the sum of the production term described by 
> surface_upward_mass_flux_of_methane_due_to_emission_from_wetland_biological_production
>  and a consumption term 
> (surface_downward_mass_flux_of_methane_due_to_emission_from_wetland_biological_consumption).
> Proposed name:
> surface_upward_mass_flux_of_methane_due_to_emission_from_wetland_biolo
> gical_processes (kg m-2 s-1) 'The emission from biological processes is the 
> net emission resulting from combined production and consumption.'
> 
> 
> Usually for a net flux, we say that in the name, so this one should be:
> surface_net_upward_mass_flux_of_methane_due_to_emission_from_wetland_biological_processes
>  (kg m-2 s-1) ' "Upward" indicates a vector component which is positive when 
> directed upward (negative downward). A net upward flux is the difference 
> between the flux from below (upward) and the flux from above (downward). In 
> accordance with common usage in geophysical disciplines, "flux" implies per 
> unit area, called "flux density" in physics. The chemical formula for methane 
> is CH4. Methane is a member of the group of hydrocarbons known as alkanes. 
> There are standard names for the alkane group as well as for some of the 
> individual species. 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. "Emission" means emission from a primary source located anywhere 
> within the atmosphere, including at the lower boundary (i.e. the surface of 
> the earth). "Emission" is a process entirely distinct from "re-emission" 
> which is used in some standard names. W  etlands are areas where water covers 
> the soil, or is present either at or near the surface of the soil all year or 
> for varying periods of time during the year, including during the growing 
> season. The precise conditions under which wetlands produce and consume 
> methane can vary between models. The quantity with standard name 
> surface_net_upward_mass_flux_of_methane_due_to_emission_from_wetland_biological_processes
>  is the difference between the upward and downward surface fluxes of methane 
> which have standard names 
> surface_upward_mass_flux_of_methane_due_to_emission_from_wetland_biological_production
>  and 
> surface_downward_mass_flux_of_methane_due_to_wetland_biological_consumption, 
> respectively.'
> 
> I have adapted the sentence we usually use to describe net radiation to 
> describe fluxes instead. We have existing standard names for both the 
> production and consumption terms so I have added cross-references to those. 
> The rest of the definition was constructed from existing text.
> 
> Is this okay? This name is still under discussion.
> 
> 3. Stratospheric optical depths
> 
> 
> 
> Following existing name stratosphere_mole_content_of_nitrogen_dioxide
> and
> atmosphere_absorption_optical_thickness_due_to_dust_ambient_aerosol_pa
> rticles and
> atmosphere_optical_thickness_due_to_sulfate_ambient_aerosol_particles
> 
> (3.1) CMIP6 short name: od550aerso Stratospheric Optical depth at 550
> nm (all aerosols) 2D-field (here we limit the computation of OD to the
> stratosphere only)
> 
> Proposed name:
> stratosphere_optical_thickness_due_to_ambient_aerosol_particles (1)
> 
> 
> 'The optical thickness is the integral along the path of radiation of a 
> volume scattering/absorption/attenuation coefficient. The radiative flux is 
> reduced by a factor exp(-"optical_thickness") on traversing the path. A 
> coordinate variable of radiation_wavelength or radiation_frequency can be 
> specified to indicate that the optical thickness applies at specific 
> wavelengths or frequencies. The stratosphere optical thickness applies to 
> radiation passing through the atmosphere layer between the tropopause and 
> stratopause. 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. 
> "Aerosol" means the system of suspended liquid or solid particles in air 
> (except cloud droplets) and their carrier gas, the air itself. 
> "Ambient_aerosol" means that the aerosol is measured or modelled at the 
> ambient state of pressure, temperature and relative hum  idity that exists in 
> its immediate environment. "Ambient aerosol particles" are aerosol particles 
> that have taken up ambient water through hygroscopic growth. The extent of 
> hygroscopic growth depends on the relative humidity and the composition of 
> the particles. To specify the relative humidity and temperature at which the 
> quantity described by the standard name applies, provide scalar coordinate 
> variables with standard names of "relative_humidity" and "air_temperature".'
> 
> The name and units look fine and I have constructed the definition from 
> existing text. This name is accepted for publication in the standard name 
> table and will be added in the May update.
> 
> 
> 
>   (3.2) CMIP6 short name od550so4so. Stratospheric Optical depth at 550
> nm (sulphate only) 2D-field (here we limit the computation of OD to
> the stratosphere only)
> 
> Proposed name:
> stratosphere_optical_thickness_due_to_sulfate_ambient_aerosol_particle
> s (1)
> 
> 
> 'The optical thickness is the integral along the path of radiation of a 
> volume scattering/absorption/attenuation coefficient. The radiative flux is 
> reduced by a factor exp(-"optical_thickness") on traversing the path. A 
> coordinate variable of radiation_wavelength or radiation_frequency can be 
> specified to indicate that the optical thickness applies at specific 
> wavelengths or frequencies. The stratosphere optical thickness applies to 
> radiation passing through the atmosphere layer between the tropopause and 
> stratopause. 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. 
> "Aerosol" means the system of suspended liquid or solid particles in air 
> (except cloud droplets) and their carrier gas, the air itself. 
> "Ambient_aerosol" means that the aerosol is measured or modelled at the 
> ambient state of pressure, temperature and relative hum  idity that exists in 
> its immediate environment. "Ambient aerosol particles" are aerosol particles 
> that have taken up ambient water through hygroscopic growth. The extent of 
> hygroscopic growth depends on the relative humidity and the composition of 
> the particles. To specify the relative humidity and temperature at which the 
> quantity described by the standard name applies, provide scalar coordinate 
> variables with standard names of "relative_humidity" and "air_temperature".'
> 
> The name and units look fine and I have constructed the definition from 
> existing text. This name is accepted for publication in the standard name 
> table and will be added in the May update.
> 
> 4. Dust
> 
> 
> 
> Based on
> atmosphere_absorption_optical_thickness_due_to_dust_ambient_aerosol_par
> ticles
> 
> (4.1) CMIP6 short name depdust.  Total Deposition Rate of Dust
> 
> Proposed name:
> surface_downward_mass_flux_of_dust_ambient_aerosol_particles (kg m-2
> s-1) It might make more sense to ask for mass flux of dry aerosols here.
> 
> 
> We have the following existing names:
> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_dust_dry_aerosol_particles_due_to_dry_deposition
> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_dust_dry_aerosol_particles_due_to_gravitational_settling
> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_dust_dry_aerosol_particles_due_to_turbulent_deposition
> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_dust_dry_aerosol_particles_due_to_wet_deposition.
> Dry_deposition is defined as the sum of gravitational_settling and 
> turbulent_deposition. The sum of dry_deposition and wet_deposition is just 
> 'deposition' which we use in some existing nitrogen_compound names. The 
> quantity you are proposing looks to me like it should be the sum of all 
> deposition terms and for consistency with the existing names it should be 
> expressed as a tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content. Putting all this 
> together, I think the name should be written as:
> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_dust_ambient_aerosol_particles_due_to_deposition
>  (kg m-2 s-1) 'The phrase "tendency_of_X" means derivative of X with respect 
> to time. "Content" indicates a quantity per unit area. The "atmosphere 
> content" of a quantity refers to the vertical integral from the surface to 
> the top of the atmosphere. For the content between specified levels in the 
> atmosphere, standard names including "content_of_atmosphere_layer" are used. 
> The mass is the total mass of the particles. "Aerosol" means the system of 
> suspended liquid or solid particles in air (except cloud droplets) and their 
> carrier gas, the air itself. "Ambient_aerosol" means that the aerosol is 
> measured or modelled at the ambient state of pressure, temperature and 
> relative humidity that exists in its immediate environment. "Ambient aerosol 
> particles" are aerosol particles that have taken up ambient water through 
> hygroscopic growth. The extent of hygroscopic growth depends on the relative 
> humidity and the composition of the particles. To specify the relative 
> humidity and temperature at which the quan  tity described by the standard 
> name applies, provide scalar coordinate variables with standard names of 
> "relative_humidity" and "air_temperature". 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. "Deposition" is the sum of wet and dry 
> deposition.'
> 
> The definition was constructed from existing text.
> 
> I note your comment about whether this should be a 'dry' or 'ambient' aerosol 
> name - please see my comment on proposal 4.2 which leads me to think this one 
> should indeed be 'ambient'.
> 
> 
> 
> (4.2) CMIP6 short name sedustCI. Sedimentation Flux of dust mode
> coarse insoluble The adjective "coarse" has been left out of the standard 
> name because it appears to be implicit in the term "dust".
> 
> Proposed name:
> surface_downward_mass_flux_of_insoluble_dust_ambient_aerosol_particles
> (kg m-2 s-1)
> 
> 
> The fact that this one says 'insoluble' makes me think this is what we would 
> usually call 'dry_aerosol', i.e. it hasn't (or can't) take up water from the 
> atmosphere. That would then suggest that proposal 4.1 is referring to ambient 
> aerosol because it doesn't say 'insoluble'. Do others agree with that line of 
> reasoning? We have existing names for 'coarse_mode' aerosol particles, 
> defined as having a diameter greater than 1 micrometre, and 'nucleation_mode' 
> aerosol particles, defined as having a diameter of less than 3 micrometres. I 
> am not expert enough to advise on whether 'dust' would always be considered 
> 'coarse' so I don't know whether it's necessary to include that in the name. 
> Again we should write the name as a tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content for 
> consistency with existing names. This would lead us to:
> 
> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_dust_dry_aerosol_particles_due_to_deposition
>  (kg m-2 s-1) 'The phrase "tendency_of_X" means derivative of X with respect 
> to time. "Content" indicates a quantity per unit area. The "atmosphere 
> content" of a quantity refers to the vertical integral from the surface to 
> the top of the atmosphere. For the content between specified levels in the 
> atmosphere, standard names including "content_of_atmosphere_layer" are used. 
> "Aerosol" means the system of suspended liquid or solid particles in air 
> (except cloud droplets) and their carrier gas, the air itself. Aerosol 
> particles take up ambient water (a process known as hygroscopic growth) 
> depending on the relative humidity and the composition of the particles. "Dry 
> aerosol particles" means aerosol particles without any water uptake. 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. "Deposition" is 
> the sum of wet and dry deposition.'
> 
> The definition was constructed from existing text.
> 
> Writing the name this way means we then have a pair of names, 4.1 and 4.2, 
> for deposition of ambient and dry dust aerosol particles,  respectively. Are 
> these okay?
> 
> 
> 
> (4.3) CMIP6 short name lwsrfasdust. All-sky Surface Longwave radiative
> flux due to Dust
> 
> Proposed name:
> surface_net_downward_longwave_flux_due_to_dust_ambient_aerosol (W m-2)
> 
> 
> If this is a surface flux due to dust, does it make sense to describe it as 
> net flux? A net downward flux would be the difference between the downwelling 
> flux and the upwelling flux at the surface. I assume that the models don't 
> calculate the upwelling flux due solely to dust lying on the ground(!) so I 
> think this name should be described simply as a surface_downward flux:
> surface_downward_longwave_flux_due_to_ambient_aerosol (W m-2) 'The surface 
> called "surface" means the lower boundary of the atmosphere. "Downward" 
> indicates a vector component which is positive when directed downward 
> (negative upward). The term "longwave" means longwave radiation. In 
> accordance with common usage in geophysical disciplines, "flux" implies per 
> unit area, called "flux density" in physics. 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. "Aerosol" means the system of suspended liquid 
> or solid particles in air (except cloud droplets) and their carrier gas, the 
> air itself. "Ambient_aerosol" means that the aerosol is measured or modelled 
> at the ambient state of pressure, temperature and relative humidity that 
> exists in its immediate environment. "Ambient aerosol particles" are aerosol 
> particles that have taken up ambient water through hygroscopic growth. The 
> extent of hygrosc  opic growth depends on the relative humidity and the 
> composition of the particles. To specify the relative humidity and 
> temperature at which the quantity described by the standard name applies, 
> provide scalar coordinate variables with standard names of 
> "relative_humidity" and "air_temperature".'
> 
> The definition was constructed from existing text.
> 
> Okay?
> 
> 
> 
> (4.4) CMIP6 short name lwsrfcsdust. Clear-sky Surface Longwave
> radiative flux due to Dust
> 
> Proposed name:
> surface_net_downward_longwave_flux_due_to_dust_ambient_aerosol_assumin
> g_clear_sky (W m-2)
> 
> 
> As for proposal 4.3, I think this one should be a downward, rather than net 
> downward, flux:
> surface_downward_longwave_flux_due_to_dust_ambient_aerosol_assuming_clear_sky 
> (W m-2) 'The surface called "surface" means the lower boundary of the 
> atmosphere. "Downward" indicates a vector component which is positive when 
> directed downward (negative upward). The term "longwave" means longwave 
> radiation. In accordance with common usage in geophysical disciplines, "flux" 
> implies per unit area, called "flux density" in physics. 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. "Aerosol" means the system of 
> suspended liquid or solid particles in air (except cloud droplets) and their 
> carrier gas, the air itself."Ambient_aerosol" means that the aerosol is 
> measured or modelled at the ambient state of pressure, temperature and 
> relative humidity that exists in its immediate environment. "Ambient aerosol 
> particles" are aerosol particles that have taken up ambient water through 
> hygroscopic growth. The extent of hygrosco  pic growth depends on the 
> relative humidity and the composition of the particles. To specify the 
> relative humidity and temperature at which the quantity described by the 
> standard name applies, provide scalar coordinate variables with standard 
> names of "relative_humidity" and "air_temperature". A phrase 
> "assuming_condition" indicates that the named quantity is the value which 
> would obtain if all aspects of the system were unaltered except for the 
> assumption of the circumstances specified by the condition.'
> 
> Okay?
> 
> 
> 
> (4.5) CMIP6 short name lwtoacsdust. Clear Sky Longwave Radiative
> Forcing due to Dust at TOA
> 
> Proposed name:
> toa_net_downward_longwave_flux_due_to_dust_ambient_aerosol_assuming_cl
> ear_sky (W m-2)
> 
> 
> The CMIP6 description says this one is a radiative forcing, rather than a 
> flux. Looking at existing names, I see that we have a three that include the 
> term 'cloud_radiative_effect', e.g. toa_longwave_cloud_radiative_effect, 
> defined as longwave cloud radiative forcing. I suggest we follow the pattern 
> of the existing names and write this one as:
> toa_longwave_dust_ambient_aerosol_particles_radiative_effect (W m-2) ' "toa" 
> means top of atmosphere. The term "longwave" means longwave radiation. Dust 
> radiative effect is also commonly known as "dust radiative forcing". It is 
> the difference in radiative flux resulting from the presence of dust aerosol 
> particles, i.e. it is the difference between 
> toa_outgoing_longwave_flux_assuming_clear_sky and toa outgoing longwave flux 
> assuming a clear sky (i.e. no clouds) and no dust. "Aerosol" means the system 
> of suspended liquid or solid particles in air (except cloud droplets) and 
> their carrier gas, the air itself. "Ambient_aerosol" means that the aerosol 
> is measured or modelled at the ambient state of pressure, temperature and 
> relative humidity that exists in its immediate environment. "Ambient aerosol 
> particles" are aerosol particles that have taken up ambient water through 
> hygroscopic growth. The extent of hygroscopic growth depends on the relative 
> humidity and the composition of the particles. To specify the relative 
> humidity and temperature at which the q  uantity described by the standard 
> name applies, provide scalar coordinate variables with standard names of 
> "relative_humidity" and "air_temperature". A phrase "assuming_condition" 
> indicates that the named quantity is the value which would obtain if all 
> aspects of the system were unaltered except for the assumption of the 
> circumstances specified by the condition.'
> 
> Is this okay?
> 
> 
> 
> (4.6) CMIP6 short name swsrfasdust. All-sky Surface Shortwave
> radiative flux due to Dust
> 
> As (4.3), but for shortwave.
> 
> 
> To be consistent with 4.3, this one would be:
> surface_downward_shortwave_flux_due_to_ambient_aerosol (W m-2) 'The surface 
> called "surface" means the lower boundary of the atmosphere. "Downward" 
> indicates a vector component which is positive when directed downward 
> (negative upward). The term "shortwave" means shortwave radiation. In 
> accordance with common usage in geophysical disciplines, "flux" implies per 
> unit area, called "flux density" in physics. 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. "Aerosol" means the system of suspended liquid 
> or solid particles in air (except cloud droplets) and their carrier gas, the 
> air itself. "Ambient_aerosol" means that the aerosol is measured or modelled 
> at the ambient state of pressure, temperature and relative humidity that 
> exists in its immediate environment. "Ambient aerosol particles" are aerosol 
> particles that have taken up ambient water through hygroscopic growth. The 
> extent of hygro  scopic growth depends on the relative humidity and the 
> composition of the particles. To specify the relative humidity and 
> temperature at which the quantity described by the standard name applies, 
> provide scalar coordinate variables with standard names of 
> "relative_humidity" and "air_temperature".'
> 
> Okay?
> 
> 
> 
> (4.7) CMIP6 short name swsrfcsdust. Clear-sky Surface Shortwave
> radiative flux due to Dust
> 
> As (4.4), but for shortwave.
> 
> 
> To be consistent with 4.4, this one would be:
> surface_downward_shortwave_flux_due_to_dust_ambient_aerosol_assuming_clear_sky
>  (W m-2) ' The surface called "surface" means the lower boundary of the 
> atmosphere. "Downward" indicates a vector component which is positive when 
> directed downward (negative upward). The term "shortwave" means shortwave 
> radiation. In accordance with common usage in geophysical disciplines, "flux" 
> implies per unit area, called "flux density" in physics. 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. "Aerosol" means the system of 
> suspended liquid or solid particles in air (except cloud droplets) and their 
> carrier gas, the air itself. "Ambient_aerosol" means that the aerosol is 
> measured or modelled at the ambient state of pressure, temperature and 
> relative humidity that exists in its immediate environment. "Ambient aerosol 
> particles" are aerosol particles that have taken up ambient water through 
> hygroscopic growth. The extent of hygr  oscopic growth depends on the 
> relative humidity and the composition of the particles. To specify the 
> relative humidity and temperature at which the quantity described by the 
> standard name applies, provide scalar coordinate variables with standard 
> names of "relative_humidity" and "air_temperature". A phrase 
> "assuming_condition" indicates that the named quantity is the value which 
> would obtain if all aspects of the system were unaltered except for the 
> assumption of the circumstances specified by the condition.'
> 
> Okay?
> 
> Best wishes,
> Alison
> 
> ------
> Alison Pamment                                 Tel: +44 1235 778065
> NCAS/Centre for Environmental Data Archival    Email: 
> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> R25, 2.22
> Harwell Oxford, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
> 
> 
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> [email protected]<mailto:[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

Reply via email to