Dear Roy,
thanks ... I'd overlooked that specification of productivity in the descriptions.
I've looked at the units of course .. happy to take on board any other suggestions.
regards,
Martin
________________________________
From: Lowry, Roy K. <rkl at bodc.ac.uk>
Sent: 24 April 2019 19:03:35
To: Juckes, Martin (STFC,RAL,RALSP); CF-metadata (cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu)
Subject: Re: Some standard name updates to improve consistency.
Dear Martin,
>From what I can see, the productivity Standard Name descriptions use the phrase '"Productivity" means production per unit area'. Looking at the canonical units productivity is moles_or_mass/m2/s, whereas production is moles_or_mass/m3/s. This means that productivity is in fact the depth integral of production and not the rate of a state variable.
I would suggest that before doing any 'tidying up' that the canonical units are checked.
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 Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC <martin.juckes at stfc.ac.uk>
Sent: 24 April 2019 13:41
To: CF-metadata (cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu)
Subject: [CF-metadata] Some standard name updates to improve consistency.
Hello All,
The standard name table has a high degree of internal consistency across thousands of variables, but there are a few anomalies. I'd like to suggest a few changes below. These are minor issues,
1. Change "aerosol" to "aerosol_particles".
The overwhelming majority of aerosol terms refer to "aerosol_particles". There are two anomalies:
* tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_sulfate_dry_aerosol_expressed_as_sulfur_due_to_wet_deposition
* mercury_dry_aerosol
Should these be changed to "aerosol_particles"?
2. Primary production vs. primary productivity
There are 6 terms for net_primary_productivity_of_biomass_expressed_as_carbon..., and one for net_primary_production_of_biomass_expressed_as_carbon_per_unit_volume_in_sea_water. In addition, there are 6 terms using primary_production in the construction "due_to_net_primary_production".
Production and productivity are often used interchangeably, but some people draw a distinction. E.g. using "productivity" for a rate and "production" for an amount. The usage in the standard names could be interpreted as using "primary_production" in oceanic contexts and "primary_productivity" in land contexts, but net_primary_productivity_of_biomass_expressed_as_carbon is not explicitly defined as applying only to land. Should it be?
Can we either change these terms to consistently use "productivity" (or "production"), or, if that is not appropriate, provide some explanation of the use of two different terms for the same quantity?
3. aerodynamic_resistance
The definition of this term implies that it refers to the aerodynamic resistance of the boundary layer, rather than the more general concept of aerodynamic resistance as defined, for example, by AMS:
http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Aerodynamic_resistance .
If the narrower term is intended, perhaps the name should be changed to aerodynamic_resistance_of_planetary_boundary_layer, so that it is clear that this is a boundary layer property.
4. Litter and Soil
To mean the combination of litter and soil, we have one use of "soil_and_litter", one of "litter_and_soil". There are multiple uses of "vegetation_litter_and_soil", so we can take this as the preferred order.
Can we change carbon_mass_flux_into_soil_and_litter_due_to_anthropogenic_land_use_or_land_cover_change to carbon_mass_flux_into_litter_and_soil_due_to_anthropogenic_land_use_or_land_cover_change for consistency?
5. Products
There are 7 terms which use the old name "omega", which is now aliassed to "lagrangian_tendency_of_air_pressure". Two of these are redundant, because they are of the form "product_of_B_and_A" for terms already covered by "product_of_A_and_B".
1. product_of_specific_humidity_and_omega
2. product_of_omega_and_specific_humidity [redundant]
3. product_of_eastward_wind_and_omega
4. product_of_northward_wind_and_omega
5. product_of_air_temperature_and_omega
6. product_of_omega_and_air_temperature [redundant]
7. product_of_geopotential_height_and_omega
Can we remove the two redundant terms, and replace "omega" with "lagrangian_tendency_of_air_pressure"?
6. Use of "net_downward" in aerosol indirect radiative effect terms
There are 5 aerosol direct radiative effect terms. These are analogous to cloud radiative effect terms (3) and radiative forcing terms (12). For all the radiative forcing terms and the cloud radiative effect terms, the sign convention is assumed to be that positive forcing/radiative effect is equivalent to a downward radiative flux. This is also true for the TOA direct radiative effect term. For 4 terms describing the aerosol direct radiative effect at the surface, there is an additional inclusion of "net_downward" in the term. This looks redundant to me, and I think it should be removed for consistency with other radiative effect and forcing terms.
* surface_net_downward_longwave_dust_ambient_aerosol_particles_direct_radiative_effect
* surface_net_downward_longwave_dust_ambient_aerosol_particles_direct_radiative_effect_assuming_clear_sky
* surface_net_downward_shortwave_dust_ambient_aerosol_particles_direct_radiative_effect
* surface_net_downward_shortwave_dust_ambient_aerosol_particles_direct_radiative_effect_assuming_clear_sky
7. Use of "downwelling" in attenuation coefficients
Attenuation of radiation is a measure of the reduction of strength of a radiation wave passing through a medium. It does not depend on the direction of travel of the radiation. One term includes redundant directional information:
* volume_attenuation_coefficient_of_downwelling_radiative_flux_in_sea_water
This term is intended have some relevance to downwelling fluxes in sea water. Possibly it is intended to be evaluated at frequencies representative of the downwelling radiative flux.
Can we remove "downwelling" from this term and/or clarify any assumptions about spectral range?
8. Specification of air vs. ocean
Scattering terms all specify whether they are in air or sea water, except one: backscattering_ratio. The definition makes it clear that this term is intended to refer to atmospheric backscattering. For consistency with other terms, it should be:
* backscattering_ratio_in_air
9. cloud liquid water particle vs. particles and aerosol particle vs. particles.
There are 2 terms referring to "cloud_liquid_water_particles" and 8 using the singular "cloud_liquid_water_particle". For aerosols, we have 236 referring to aerosol_particles and 2 referring to aerosol_particle.
One possible distinction is between adjectival use, as in "ambient_aerosol_particle_diameter", versus the more common substantive use, as in "asymmetry_factor_of_ambient_aerosol_particles". If this approach is adopted, there are 5 aerosol particle direct radiative effect terms which should be changed to the singular adjectival form:
* surface_net_downward_longwave_dust_ambient_aerosol_particles_direct_radiative_effect
* surface_net_downward_longwave_dust_ambient_aerosol_particles_direct_radiative_effect_assuming_clear_sky
* surface_net_downward_shortwave_dust_ambient_aerosol_particles_direct_radiative_effect
* surface_net_downward_shortwave_dust_ambient_aerosol_particles_direct_radiative_effect_assuming_clear_sky
* toa_longwave_dust_ambient_aerosol_particles_direct_radiative_effect_assuming_clear_sky
The same argument would imply that all cloud liquid water particle terms should use the plural. There are two number concentration terms which already use the plural:
number_concentration_of_cloud_liquid_water_particles_in_air
number_concentration_of_cloud_liquid_water_particles_in_air_at_liquid_water_cloud_top
8 terms would need to be modified, 2 for number concentration and 6 for effective radius:
* effective_radius_of_cloud_liquid_water_particle
* effective_radius_of_cloud_liquid_water_particle_at_liquid_water_cloud_top
* effective_radius_of_convective_cloud_liquid_water_particle
* effective_radius_of_convective_cloud_liquid_water_particle_at_convective_liquid_water_cloud_top
* effective_radius_of_stratiform_cloud_liquid_water_particle
* effective_radius_of_stratiform_cloud_liquid_water_particle_at_stratiform_liquid_water_cloud_top
* number_concentration_of_convective_cloud_liquid_water_particle_at_convective_liquid_water_cloud_top
* number_concentration_of_stratiform_cloud_liquid_water_particle_at_stratiform_liquid_water_cloud_top
regards,
Martin
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
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.
Received on Thu Apr 25 2019 - 05:41:22 BST
