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" <P.Halloran at exeter.ac.uk> -----
> Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 11:59:05 +0000
> From: "Halloran, Paul" <P.Halloran at exeter.ac.uk>
> To: "cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu" <cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> 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
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
----- End forwarded message -----
Received on Wed Sep 26 2018 - 13:33:18 BST
