[CF-metadata] Some standard name updates to improve consistency.

From: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2019 17:19:04 +0000

Dear Martin and Alison

Thank you for carefully pursuing this detailed discussion. The degree of
consistency which Martin remarked upon initially is encouraging, but it's also
evident that we have to work very hard to achieve that, and any tools that we
can put in place to make it easier (as Martin is thinking about, I believe)
are well worth considering.

I have some small points.

> 1. I've looked into the elemental/black carbon issue briefly
...
> it may make sense to deal with that in a separate discussion and try to get some relevant experts involved.

I agree with that conclusion.

> 9. I'm still a little uncomfortable with the idea of "ambient_aerosol" referring to the suspension of particles in air. The phrase "ambient_aerosol_particles" is used when we are referring to properties of the particles rather than the suspension

This is like the distinction between ocean vs sea_water and atmosphere vs air.

> I can't think of a meaningful interpretation of a "dry aerosol" (I think dust_dry_aerosol is only used in the form dust_dry_aerosol_particles).

We have the following names which mention dry_aerosol without particles:

mass_concentration_of_biomass_burning_dry_aerosol_in_air
mass_fraction_of_mercury_dry_aerosol_in_air
tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_mercury_dry_aerosol_due_to_emission
tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_sulfate_dry_aerosol_expressed_as_sulfur_due_to_wet_deposition

> For "relative_humidity_for_aerosol_particle_size_selection", I recognise that this would be the only use of "particle" in the singular.

This is a minor concern, but to avoid introducing it in the singular we could
write relative_humidity_for_size_selection_of_aerosol_particles - that might
be easier to read as well.

> I suggest we add 'A positive radiative forcing or radiative effect is
equivalent to a downward radiative flux and contributes to a warming of the
earth system.'

I agree that for the sake of clarity it would be good to add this. It's
consistent with literature, as you say, and also with the IPCC AR5 glossary,
which says, "Radiative forcing is the change in the net, downward minus upward,
radiative flux ...".

Best wishes

Jonathan
Received on Tue May 07 2019 - 11:19:04 BST