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

From: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 09:23:52 +0100

Dear Christiane

It is often hard to find the right line between familiarity and clarity of
terms! In this case, I think the ideas of surface emission and deposition as
fluxes are well known. I feel that an emission flux from the bulk of the
atmosphere was not an obvious idea, and that tendency due to emission is
clearer. I believe we agree on these choices, which are also
consistent with our names in other cases e.g. surface freshwater and energy
fluxes, versus tendency of atmosphere content of water and energy. Your
question here is whether production/destruction should be named as a "rate"
or a "tendency due to". I would be happy with either, to be honest. I think
rate (your preference) would clear enough. Yes, we could discuss on the phone
if we need to - and if we can arrange it :-).

Best wishes

Jonathan

----- Forwarded message from Christiane Textor <christiane.textor at gmx.de> -----

>
> Dear Jonathan and Alison,
>
> You are now suggesting to use the "tendency names" for 2 cases:
>
> tendency_of_atmospheric_X_due_to_emission
> tendency_of_atmospheric_X_due_to_chemical_gross|net_production|destruction
>
> and the more "colloquial names" for all others
>
> surface_dry|wet_deposition_X_flux_of_Y
> surface_emission_X_flux_of_Y
>
> I think for the sake of consistency there are 2 possibilities:
> 1) the tendency names should always be used
> 2) the tendency names should only be used in those case, when there is
> no other possibility (as for the first one mentioned above)
>
> In your recent email, however, you propose a mixture of these
> approaches, that is not obvious to me.
>
> I prefer the first possibility, that is the clearest approach.
>
> For possibility 2) I would find it more consistent to stick to the
> original idea of using
> chemical_net|gross_destruction|production_rate_of_X_due_to_Y
>
> To speed up the process I would suggest a little teleconference where we
> clarify these issues and the remaining others to concerning aerosol and
> chemistry names. We can then summerize the result and post to the CF
> mailing list.
>
> Best regards,
> Christiane
Received on Wed Apr 04 2007 - 02:23:52 BST