Dear Christiane and Jonathan,
Sorry for entering late into this conversation. I like the idea of using tendency_of_X_of_Y_due_to_Z
(X=mass, mole concentration, etc, Y=species, Z=process). It is a good general naming convention.
Christiane wrote:
>
> The names for chemical production and loss rates would then remain:
>
> chemical_gross_production_rate_of_X_of_Y
> chemical_net_production_rate_of_X_of_Y
>
My understanding was that Jonathan was suggesting names of the form:
tendency_of_atmospheric_X_of_Y_due_to_chemical_gross_production|destruction
tendency_of_atmospheric_X_of_Y_due_to_chemical_net_production|destruction
as well as
tendency_of_atmospheric_X_of_Y_due_to_emissions.
This seems to me to work well as a convention for all the emission/production/destruction names.
>
> For individual reactions the following names could be used:
> chemical_production_rate_of_X_of_Y
> chemical_production_rate_of_X_of_Y
> with an additional dimension giving the respective reactions.
>
My previous comments regarding the use of 'tendency' would also apply to these names. Regarding the dimension, CF1.0 Section 6 talks about the use of labels. These are provided in a string array and they are attached to a variable using the "coordinates" attribute. Bear in mind that, currently, the only standard labels that have been agreed are those for geographic region names. Having a list of standardized reaction names to use as labels would require a modification to the CF1.0 conventions. I suppose the alternative would be to have a new standard name for each reaction but I suspect that would be a lot of names. If you are content to use non-standardized reaction labels then you could certainly do so without the need for any modification to CF.
>
>new:
>tendency_of_atmospheric_X_of_Y_due_to_emissions
>To be more consistent with the surface flux names, I would suggest: >atmosphere_emission_X_tendency_of_Y
>
Personally, I prefer the first suggestion to having atmosphere_emission_X_tendency_of_Y. I agree with the point that Jonathan made that having 'tendency' at the beginning is more consistent with the standard name guidelines (and hence with existing names).
>
>In addition, the surface_emission_X_flux_of_Y
>is a subgroup of atmosphere_emission_X_tendency_of_Y
> no matter what name we finally choose. Do you agree?
>
I agree that emissions from the surface are a subset of total emissions into the atmosphere. We could include something in the definitions that explains the relationship between tendency_of_atmospheric_X_of_Y_due_to_emissions and surface_emission_X_flux_of_Y.
>
>unchanged:
>surface_dry_deposition_X_flux_of_Y
>surface_wet_deposition_X_flux_of_Y
>surface_emission_X_flux_of_Y
>
I agree that these names are fine as they are.
Best wishes,
Alison
------
Alison Pamment Tel: +44 1235 778065
NCAS/British Atmospheric Data Centre Fax: +44 1235 446314
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Email: J.A.Pamment at rl.ac.uk
Chilton, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
>
>
> Jonathan Gregory a ?crit :
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 Wed Mar 28 2007 - 05:30:35 BST
