Dear Jonathan,
Indeed, I completely dropped the emission discussion, sorry for that!
My current proposal is
atmosphere_emission_mass_flux_of_X
atmosphere_production_mass_flux_of_X
These names for emisions are complementory to
surface_dry/wet_deposition_mass_flux
I agree with your idea of using the term 'tendency' for emissions, but
then we should also use it for other processes, which is a very good
idea. I would suggest the following names:
tendency_of_atmospheric_X_of_Y_due_to_emissions
tendency_of_atmospheric_X_of_Y_due_to_dry_deposition
tendency_of_atmospheric_X_of_Y_due_to_wet_deposition
X mass-,number-,mole-concentration/fraction for 3d fields
X mass-,number-,mole-content for vertically integrated 2 d fields
Y species
This would possibly require an explanation as the tendency of the last
two are always negative (sinks), but usuallly reported in positive numbers.
The old name
atmosphere_production_mass_flux_of_X
would become
tendency_of_atmospheric_X_of_Y_due_to_chemical_production
This principle should then also be used for chemical loss:
tendency_of_atmospheric_X_of_Y_due_to_chemical_destruction
and as a consequence would change the old names for chemical production
and loss rates, which are at the moment like this:
chemical_gross_production_rate_of_X_of_Y
chemical gross production of Y
chemical_net_production_rate_of_X_of_Y
chemical net production of ozone from all reactions (prod-loss)
We could have
gross_tendency_of_atmospheric_X_of_Y_due_to_chemical_destruction
net_tendency_of_atmospheric_X_of_Y_due_to_chemical_destruction
gross_tendency_of_atmospheric_X_of_Y_due_to_chemical_production
net_tendency_of_atmospheric_X_of_Y_due_to_chemical_production
To specify the prod/loss due to specific reactions, we could define a
dimension indicating a specific reaction using
tendency_of_atmospheric_X_of_Y_due_to_chemical_destruction
with the dimension indicating a specif reaction in characters?
Cheers,
Christiane
Jonathan Gregory a ?crit :
>>>The updated names are atmosphere_emission_mass_flux_of_X, there is no
>>>surface.
>>
>>It sounds a bit strange to me to call it a flux when it isn't passing through
>>a surface.
>
>
> I wonder whether you would consider calling these tendency_of_atmosphere_
> content_of_X_due_to_emission? I understand "emission" to include both emission
> through the surface, and into the volume of the atmosphere.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
--
Christiane Textor
Service d'A?ronomie INSU CNRS, Tour 46, RDC # 2
Universit? Pierre et Marie Curie, Boite 102
4 place Jussieu
75252 Paris C?dex 05
France
Tel: ++33 1.44.27.21.82
Fax: ++33 1.44.27.21.81
Email: christiane.textor at aero.jussieu.fr
Received on Fri Mar 16 2007 - 03:38:44 GMT
