[CF-metadata] Fwd: Re: approval of standard_names for aerosols and chemistry for HTAP

From: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 15:12:21 +0000

Dear Christiane

I had not intended that you should reconsider all of the names, but I see the
advantage in what you propose. I would suggest a compromise. I think the
surface emission, wet and dry deposition are OK as fluxes. I find it natural
to consider them as fluxes, because there is a surface. Also, as you say, there
is a normal sign convention for these. This is like fluxes of precipitation and
evaporation, for which we have standard names.

However, I don't find it natural to call the emission from a source within the
atmosphere a "flux"; that's why I suggested tendency_of_atmosphere_X_content.
But I think you are right that tendency_of_X_concentration_of_Y_due_to_Z
(X=mole etc, Y=species) would a clear way of naming production and destruction.
I think Z=gross/net_chemical_production/destruction would be more consistent
with the standard name guidelines than putting gross/net_tendency.

Best wishes

Jonathan
Received on Fri Mar 16 2007 - 09:12:21 GMT