[CF-metadata] propsed new due_to_process

From: Kettleborough, JA <J.A.Kettleborough>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 14:09:01 +0100

Hello,

Could we think about adding a some new processes to the due_to list in the guidelines for forming CF standard names?

1) due_to_advection
e.g. tendency_of_air_temperature_due_to_advection: K s-1

tendency_of_nnnnnn_due_to_advection is the Eulerian counterpart of lagrangian_tendency_of_nnnnnn.
Many models output contributions to tendencies due to advection and so this would be a useful addition.

There is a possible ambiguity I am aware of which is some communities use the term convection when meteorologists say advection. But this is already present in the standard name table since due_to_convection is already allowed. I don't think you would be adding to the ambiguity by adding due_to_advection (and may be removing it since both terms are now present?)

2) due_to_diffusion
e.g. tendency_of_specific_humidity_due_to_diffusion: s-1

due_to_diffusion may have different interpretations: molecular diffusion, turbulent eddy diffusion, eddy diffusion (in 2D lat-height models), horizontal diffusion in a GCM (often high order Del operator rather than del squared), vertical diffusion (eg based on Richardson scheme) in an GCM. Any thoughts on these differences? As a first stab I'd suggest calling the whole lot diffusion and allow qualification somewhere else (say in the long name?).
3) due_to_emissions
e.g. surface_mass_flux_of_sulphur_dioxide_due_to_emissions:kg m-2 s-1 (OK this one is not even a standard name without the due_to_emissions process... but I hope it makes some sense).

This is obviously most relevant to chemistry and so could wait to be added when there are more chemicals in the standard name table? Again there are possible qualifications of emissions, such as natural, anthropogenic, (and even sub divisions of these, volcanic, biogenic, enteric fermentation, aircraft etc.). Any thoughts one whether these need to be distiguished at the standard_name level? Again as a first stab I'd suggest using 'due_to_emissions' and then worrying about more detailed qualification somewhere else.

Jamie
Received on Thu May 05 2005 - 07:09:01 BST