[CF-metadata] Save The Date! 2018 netCDF-CF Workshop, 19-20 June 2018, Reading, UK
Hi all, Please save the date for the 2018 netCDF-CF Workshop, it will be on 19-20 June 2018 at the University of Reading in the UK. More information will be coming soon. Thanks, The Workshop Organizing Committee ___ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Re: [CF-metadata] Clarifying standard names for 'mass_concentration_of_*_dry_aerosol_particles'
Dear Daniel Thanks for your hard work on this and your careful description of what you propose. I'm not an expert on this myself, so I don't have an insider's insight and familiarity with these quantities. To me as a non-expert, what you propose generally makes sense, seems logical and in many cases is appealing because it is shorter. > In the case of "atmosphere_mass_content_of_..." I added "_in_air" in > the end, which was not there before. Actually I don't think we should do this, because atmosphere_ and _in_air are alternatives in standard names, similarly ocean_ and _in_sea_water. The former denotes a property of the entire medium, the latter of the local fluid. > (a) ..._dry_particulate_particulate_organic_matter... > Thus, we had "particulate" twice. We could also call it > (a) ..._dry_particulate_organic_matter... > > which would be less confusing to read. But it would break the rule. I'm in favour of removing the duplication; particulate_particulate would look like a mistake and cause confusion. > the renaming convention in the beginning yields a name structure like > "SIZE-CLASS_WHAT" with "SIZE-CLASS" in "particulate", "pm10", > "pm2p5", ... and with "WHAT" in "nitrate", "ammonium", ... . In this > situation, we don't have a "WHAT" because we mean "all compounds" or > "total". Should we leave it like that or should we insert something > for "WHAT"? Do you mean e.g. mass_concentration_of_ambient_pm10_in_air? I think that is fine. I understand pm10 to mean pm10 particles of any species. > that "dry pm10" + "water in pm10" = "ambient pm10". This would be > a consistent formulation. > But it is not intuitive ... . Do you mean e.g. mass_fraction_of_ambient_pm10_in_air mass_fraction_of_dry_pm10_in_air mass_fraction_of_water_in_pm10_in_air I'm not sure that I understand, but I don't think ambient = dry + water in this case, because the last one appears to mean the mass fraction of the ambient aerosol which is water. I have a vague recollection of discussing before what this was intended to mean. Do you want to describe the mass fraction of the air which is the water of the ambient aerosol? > THE END Good night and sleep well. Best wishes Jonathan ___ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Re: [CF-metadata] Clarifying standard names for 'mass_concentration_of_*_dry_aerosol_particles'
Dear Daniel, Thanks for going through this list so thoroughly. I'm aware that these names have been waiting for attention for a while now and will try to look through them all this week, but please bear with me as we have a lot of standard names requests being processed at the moment. Best wishes, Alison -- Alison Pamment Tel: +44 1235 778065 NCAS/Centre for Environmental Data ArchivalEmail: alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory R25, 2.22 Harwell Oxford, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K. -Original Message- From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Daniel Neumann Sent: 21 March 2018 11:14 To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Clarifying standard names for 'mass_concentration_of_*_dry_aerosol_particles' Dear Jonathan, Dear List, > To be quite clear (although the subject says so): > your rename proposals concern particulate/aerosol > species. Yes. The renaming conventions and arising problems are generically described below. In the meantime I had an idea for the 5 'no-idea' names. Therefore, we have 110 clear names, 58 to-discuss names, and 10 not-nice names to present. The 58 to-discuss names are split into five "situations" (numbered 1 to 5) and the 10 not-nice names are split into two "situations (numbered 6 to 7). I also attached a xls file with five sheets, which contain my renaming suggestions. The third column in each sheet points to the respective "situation" (if applicable). Everyone who takes time to look through this: I appreciate the time you spend on it :-) . It's really a long email. Regards, Daniel ~~ ~~ ~~ 110 unproblematic names: Generally, I renamed the species from the structure ..._of_SUBSTANCE_dry_aerosol_particles_[expressed_as_ELEMENT_]... to ..._of_dry_particulate_SUBSTANCE_[expressed_as_ELEMENT_]... and names with pm10/pm2p5/pm1 were converted from ..._of_pm(10|2p5|1)_SUBSTANCE_dry_aerosol_particles_[expressed_as_ELEMENT_]... to ..._of_dry_pm(10|2p5|1)_SUBSTANCE_[expressed_as_ELEMENT_]... In the case of "atmosphere_mass_content_of_..." I added "_in_air" in the end, which was not there before. Their were a few standard names like "...nitric_acid_trihydrate_ambient_aerosol_particles", which did not describe dry aerosol species but ambient (wet) ones. Therefore, I added "dry" in the beginning. See "Situation 3" below for details. I don't like this solution but I feel this is reasonable for being unambiguous. ~~ ~~ ~~ 58 to-discuss names: ~ Situation 1: particulate organic matter (26 names) There exist names with: (a) ..._particulate_organic_matter_dry_aerosol_particles... (b) ..._pm10_particulate_organic_matter_dry_aerosol_particles... (c) ..._pm2p5_particulate_organic_matter_dry_aerosol_particles... "particulate organic matter" is a commonly used expression. Although atmospheric science people often use "organic aerosol" instead (see situation 2) and, although, it seems to be more common in marine science, it might be reasonable to keep it. When we convert names (b) and (c), we get: (b) ..._dry_pm10_particulate_organic_matter... (c) ..._dry_pm2p5_particulate_organic_matter... This is consistent with the general renaming policy from the beginning of this email. When we convert name (a) according to it, we get (a) ..._dry_particulate_particulate_organic_matter... Thus, we had "particulate" twice. We could also call it (a) ..._dry_particulate_organic_matter... which would be less confusing to read. But it would break the rule. ~ Situation 2: primary and secondary organic aerosols (15 names) There exists names with: ..._(primary|secondary)_particulate_organic_matter_dry_aerosol_particles... Although "primary particulate organic matter" is consistent with "particulate organic matter" from situation 1, it is not commonly used. Commonly, the expression "primary organic aerosol" (POA) is used. The same for secondary organic aerosol. Therefore, I suggest to rename this name to ..._(dry|ambient)_particulate_(primary|secondary)_organic_aerosol... We have a doubling of "particulate" and "aerosol" but particularly "secondary organic aerosol" is really often used. And, people will probably also look for this expression in the standard name table. ~ Situation 3: pm10, pm2.5 and pm1 mass (15 names) There are name with ...pm10_(dry|ambient)_aerosol_particles... which describe the pm10 particle mass (dry or wet). I renamed these names to ...ambient_pm10... ...dry_pm10... The new names are clearly to understand and short. However, the renaming convention in the beginning yields a name structure like "SIZE-CLASS_WHAT" with "SIZE-CLASS" in "particulate", "pm10", "pm2p5", ... and with "WHAT" in "nitrate", "ammonium", ... . In this situation, we don't have a "WHAT" because we mean
Re: [CF-metadata] Clarifying standard names for 'mass_concentration_of_*_dry_aerosol_particles'
Dear Jonathan, Dear List, > To be quite clear (although the subject says so): > your rename proposals concern particulate/aerosol > species. Yes. The renaming conventions and arising problems are generically described below. In the meantime I had an idea for the 5 'no-idea' names. Therefore, we have 110 clear names, 58 to-discuss names, and 10 not-nice names to present. The 58 to-discuss names are split into five "situations" (numbered 1 to 5) and the 10 not-nice names are split into two "situations (numbered 6 to 7). I also attached a xls file with five sheets, which contain my renaming suggestions. The third column in each sheet points to the respective "situation" (if applicable). Everyone who takes time to look through this: I appreciate the time you spend on it :-) . It's really a long email. Regards, Daniel ~~ ~~ ~~ 110 unproblematic names: Generally, I renamed the species from the structure ..._of_SUBSTANCE_dry_aerosol_particles_[expressed_as_ELEMENT_]... to ..._of_dry_particulate_SUBSTANCE_[expressed_as_ELEMENT_]... and names with pm10/pm2p5/pm1 were converted from ..._of_pm(10|2p5|1)_SUBSTANCE_dry_aerosol_particles_[expressed_as_ELEMENT_]... to ..._of_dry_pm(10|2p5|1)_SUBSTANCE_[expressed_as_ELEMENT_]... In the case of "atmosphere_mass_content_of_..." I added "_in_air" in the end, which was not there before. Their were a few standard names like "...nitric_acid_trihydrate_ambient_aerosol_particles", which did not describe dry aerosol species but ambient (wet) ones. Therefore, I added "dry" in the beginning. See "Situation 3" below for details. I don't like this solution but I feel this is reasonable for being unambiguous. ~~ ~~ ~~ 58 to-discuss names: ~ Situation 1: particulate organic matter (26 names) There exist names with: (a) ..._particulate_organic_matter_dry_aerosol_particles... (b) ..._pm10_particulate_organic_matter_dry_aerosol_particles... (c) ..._pm2p5_particulate_organic_matter_dry_aerosol_particles... "particulate organic matter" is a commonly used expression. Although atmospheric science people often use "organic aerosol" instead (see situation 2) and, although, it seems to be more common in marine science, it might be reasonable to keep it. When we convert names (b) and (c), we get: (b) ..._dry_pm10_particulate_organic_matter... (c) ..._dry_pm2p5_particulate_organic_matter... This is consistent with the general renaming policy from the beginning of this email. When we convert name (a) according to it, we get (a) ..._dry_particulate_particulate_organic_matter... Thus, we had "particulate" twice. We could also call it (a) ..._dry_particulate_organic_matter... which would be less confusing to read. But it would break the rule. ~ Situation 2: primary and secondary organic aerosols (15 names) There exists names with: ..._(primary|secondary)_particulate_organic_matter_dry_aerosol_particles... Although "primary particulate organic matter" is consistent with "particulate organic matter" from situation 1, it is not commonly used. Commonly, the expression "primary organic aerosol" (POA) is used. The same for secondary organic aerosol. Therefore, I suggest to rename this name to ..._(dry|ambient)_particulate_(primary|secondary)_organic_aerosol... We have a doubling of "particulate" and "aerosol" but particularly "secondary organic aerosol" is really often used. And, people will probably also look for this expression in the standard name table. ~ Situation 3: pm10, pm2.5 and pm1 mass (15 names) There are name with ...pm10_(dry|ambient)_aerosol_particles... which describe the pm10 particle mass (dry or wet). I renamed these names to ...ambient_pm10... ...dry_pm10... The new names are clearly to understand and short. However, the renaming convention in the beginning yields a name structure like "SIZE-CLASS_WHAT" with "SIZE-CLASS" in "particulate", "pm10", "pm2p5", ... and with "WHAT" in "nitrate", "ammonium", ... . In this situation, we don't have a "WHAT" because we mean "all compounds" or "total". Should we leave it like that or should we insert something for "WHAT"? ~ Situation 4: biomass burning aerosol (1 name) There are names with ...biomass_burning_dry_aerosol... which I renamed to ...dry_particulate_biomass_burning_aerosol... I did not remove "aerosol" in the renaming process because "biomass burning aerosol" is commonly used and because "particulate biomass burning" is incomplete. In contrast, I renamed ...sea_salt_dry_aerosol_particles... to ...dry_particulate_sea_salt... Although "sea salt aerosol" is also often used, "particulate sea salt" is a complete and understandable expression. Therefore, I did it this way. ~ Situation 5: coarse mode ... particles (1 name) There are names with ...coarse_mode_(dry|ambient)_aeros
Re: [CF-metadata] New standard names for C4MIP - part 2
Thank you Chris, the edits in your Word document are easier to see. Thanks for getting back to me - I'll have a look through all these names shortly. Best wishes, Alison -- Alison Pamment Tel: +44 1235 778065 NCAS/Centre for Environmental Data ArchivalEmail: alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory R25, 2.22 Harwell Oxford, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K. -Original Message- From: Jones, Chris D [mailto:chris.d.jo...@metoffice.gov.uk] Sent: 20 March 2018 17:28 To: Jones, Chris D ; Pamment, Alison (STFC,RAL,RALSP) ; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu Subject: RE: New standard names for C4MIP - part 2 Apologies - it seems all of my formatting got stripped from the email - I hope it's OK to attach a word document that should be easier to read... -- Dr Chris Jones Head, Earth System and Mitigation Science Team Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB, U.K. Tel: +44 (0)1392 884514 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 E-mail: chris.d.jo...@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk -Original Message- From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Jones, Chris D Sent: 20 March 2018 17:21 To: alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New standard names for C4MIP - part 2 That's a really comprehensive first go Alison - thank you so much. Here are my responses, with yellow highlighting anything I've typed, and strike-through anything I removed. Email is not the best at track-changes, so I hope these are clear. Regards, Chris General note: as far as possible all carbon pools and most fluxes have been given a nitrogen equivalent. So nVeg parallels cVeg for example, and the sub-components nVeg=nStem+nLeaf+nRoot+nOther parallel the carbon equivalents. The overriding request if a model doesn't map neatly to these is that all carbon and nitrogen is reported somewhere so that subsequent analysis tracks conservation. 1-3 are sub components of nLitter: nLitter = nLitterCwd + nLitterSurf + nLitterSubSurf (nLitterCwd) 1. wood_debris_mass_content_of_nitrogen (kg m-2) ' "Content" indicates a quantity per unit area. "Wood debris" means dead organic matter composed of coarse wood. It is distinct from fine litter. Definition of "fine" and "coarse" litter are up to each model group, but as for the parallel carbon pools the sum should agree with the total nLitter.' (nLitterSurf) 2. surface_litter_mass_content_of_nitrogen (kg m-2) ' "Content" indicates a quantity per unit area. "Litter" is dead plant material in or above the soil. "Surface litter" means the part of fine litter resting above the soil surface.' (nLitterSubSurf) 3. subsurface_litter_mass_content_of_nitrogen (kg m-2) ' "Content" indicates a quantity per unit area. "Litter" is dead plant material in or above the soil. "Subsurface litter" means the part of fine litter mixed within the soil below the surface.' 4-7 are sub-components of nVeg (nStem) 4. wood_biomass_content_of_nitrogen (kg m-2) ' "Content" indicates a quantity per unit area.' This is by analogy with the existing standard name 'wood_carbon_content'. Although we don't currently define 'wood' in this context I am sure it means 'living wood' as opposed to wood_debris. The CMIP6 data request talks about 'stem'. I appreciate that 'stem' could refer to more than just trees, whose stems are living wood', but I think these names are essentially trying to describe the same thing. For this name we could perhaps even say living_wood_mass_content_of_nitrogen (and make an alias for the carbon name so that it follows the same pattern). What do you think? Yes, we mean living biomass and not dead wood (covered in nLitterCwd above). Hence we prefer Stem to Wood for this reason (as per carbon pool too). (nLeaf) 5. leaf_mass_content_of_nitrogen (kg m-2) ' "Content" indicates a quantity per unit area.' OK (nRoot) 6. root_mass_content_of_nitrogen (kg m-2) ' "Content" indicates a quantity per unit area.' OK (nOther) 7. miscellaneous_living_matter_mass_content_of_nitrogen (kg m-2) ' "Content" indicates a quantity per unit area. "Miscellaneous living matter" means all those parts of living vegetation that are not leaf, wood or root or other separately named components.' This is by analogy with the existing name miscellaneous_living_matter_carbon_content. There are no other separately named pools, so nStem+nLeaf+nRoot+nOther should identically equal the total in nVeg (and parallel for carbon pools and cVeg) (fNVegSoil) 8. nitrogen_mass_flux_into_soil_from_vegetation_excluding_litter (kg m-2 s-1) 'In accordance with common usage in geophysical disciplines, "flux" implies per unit area, called "flux density" in physics. "Vegetation" means any living plants e.g. trees, shrubs, grass. "Litter" is dead plant material in or above the soil.' By analogy with the existing name carbon_mass_flux_into_soil_from_vegetation_excluding_litter. OK
