Dear all
I agree with Roy that delta-14C is not a mole fraction, but a way of expressing
the deviation of an isotopic ratio in a sample from a standard isotopic ratio.
The definition Roy gives for delta-13C is shown in several websites. I think
we need the precise definition of the quantity being proposed, because there
appear to be variou quantities with big and small delta and D, and maybe they
are all different, and would need distinct standard names. I think Roy is right
that we have not given standard names to such quantities before.
Best wishes
Jonathan
----- Forwarded message from "Lowry, Roy K." <rkl at bodc.ac.uk> -----
> Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 12:55:31 +0000
> From: "Lowry, Roy K." <rkl at bodc.ac.uk>
> To: Katherine Pugsley <katherine.pugsley at bristol.ac.uk>,
> "cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu" <cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New standard name for 14CO2
>
> I think that delta-14CO2 is not the same thing as the mole fraction. Rather, it is an expression of isotopic enrichment/depletion with respect to a standard. Whilst I have no experience of atmospheric 14C, I have come across delta notation a lot with other isotopes in geology and oceanography such as 13C and 18O. There, delta is an expression of the ratio of the target isotope to another isotope in the sample relative to some standard - ((sample 13C/12C ratio / standard 13C/12C ratio) - 1) * 1000 to give a result scaled to per mil. I presume that delta-14C is no different.
>
> I am unaware (i.e. I couldn't find) a precedent for delta values in CF Standard Names. The issue of describing these things has been addressed at length in the BODC parameter descriptions with almost 400 measurement descriptions. A typical example is:
>
> Enrichment with respect to Vienna Pee Dee Belemnite (VPDB) of carbon-13 in carbonate in the sediment
>
> This particular example includes information on the specific standard used. Many do not because the information is often unavailable for older data.
>
> A straw man alternative to Kate's proposal could be
>
> enrichment_of_14C_in_carbon_dioxide_in_air
>
> If information on the standard is available then that could be added as an 'enrichment_with_respect_to_whatever' clause or the information could be confined to the long name. The better solution depends upon the use case (e.g. does it require inclusion of data where standard is unknown).
>
> Another approach could be to adopt community vocabulary such as:
>
> delta14C_in_carbon_dioxide_in_air
>
> Others may have alternative suggestions.
>
> I went for 'enrichment of x' in the BODC dictionary because it provides a better fit to a normalised semantic model for mapping purposes. One only has to include one 'enrichment' rather than a long list of 'deltas' in the semantic element.
>
> Cheers, Roy.
>
>
> I have now retired but will continue to be active through an Emeritus Fellowship using this e-mail address.
>
> ________________________________
> From: CF-metadata <cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu> on behalf of Katherine Pugsley <katherine.pugsley at bristol.ac.uk>
> Sent: 08 February 2019 10:46
> To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: [CF-metadata] New standard name for 14CO2
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> I'd like to request an addition to the standard name list for atmospheric 14CO2 measurements. Here are the details of the proposed standard name.
>
> Proposal for a new standard variable name
>
> Name: mole_fraction_of_14C_dioxide_in_air
>
> Canonical Units: 1
>
> Description: Atmospheric 14CO2 measurements are reported in ?14C notation with units of per mil, the deviation from the absolute radiocarbon reference standard. ?14C is used to calculate fossil fuel CO2 content. The long name will contain information that the variable is ?14C.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Katherine
>
>
>
>
> This email and any attachments are intended solely for the use of the named recipients. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this email or any of its attachments and should notify the sender immediately and delete this email from your system.
> UK Research and Innovation has taken every reasonable precaution to minimise risk of this email or any attachments containing viruses or malware but the recipient should carry out its own virus and malware checks before opening the attachments. UK Research and Innovation does not accept any liability for any losses or damages which the recipient may sustain due to presence of any viruses.
> Opinions, conclusions or other information in this message and attachments that are not related directly to UK Research and Innovation business are solely those of the author and do not represent the views of UK Research and Innovation.
>
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
----- End forwarded message -----
Received on Sun Feb 10 2019 - 21:56:44 GMT
