Hi Folks
As a rule, I think we should avoid discussions by phone, this is a
community process :-)
If it isn't clear in email why we do things with standard names, then
we're probably doing it wrong :-)
B
On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 09:23 +0100, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Received on Wed Apr 04 2007 - 07:33:42 BST
