Dear Paul, Jim, Roy Thanks for the clarifications. Now I understand that fugacity is different from partial pressure, so I agree it needs its own names.
Best wishes Jonathan ----- Forwarded message from "Halloran, Paul" <[email protected]> ----- > Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 11:59:05 +0000 > From: "Halloran, Paul" <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New name: fugacity of CO2 > > Thanks very much Jim. > > Just to clarify (in light of Jim’s second point), my argument around air-sea > CO2 flux which I put forward to support my suggestion that we include > fugacity is that an imprecise conversion from fugacity of CO2 to pCO2 to > allow one to submit data as a compliant netcdf (due to potentially not having > the the other required variables available at the correct frequency), while > likely to only result in small numerical errors could have bigger > implications if then used to calculate air-sea CO2 flux. > > Thanks, > Paul > > > Hi Paul, Roy, et al., > > > > A couple of points regarding fugacity. > > > > 1) In the proposed definition of fugacity, the first sentence could be > > misunderstood. I suggest changing it to the following: > > > > The fugacity is the measured pressure (or partial pressure) of a real gas > > corrected for the intermolecular forces of that gas, which allows that > > corrected > > quantity to be treated like the pressure of an ideal gas in the ideal gas > > equation PV = nRT. > > > > 2) The air-sea flux of a gas does not depend on its fugacity, only its > > partial > > pressure (i.e., in both the atmosphere and ocean). > > > > Cheers, > > > > Jim > _______________________________________________ > 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
