Hi Karl, Johnathan, Martin, at al.,
I don't want to make a big deal out of this either, so let me say up front
that I would be happy with both options.
If we have to choose which is better then...
To me, "burden" can be either a mass or number per unit area (common in
vertical observation discussions), OR a mass or number per unit volume
(typically the whole atmosphere or the whole stratosphere or
whole troposphere) which is common in modeling discussions. The meaning
is usually obvious from the context or units, and can obviously be
defined precisely for CF.
When I parse the two options (atmosphere_mole_burden_of_X
moles_of_X_in_atmosphere) they contain almost the same words:
atmosphere, moles, X, [IN or BURDEN]
The difference is whether one uses 'in' or 'burden'. To me 'in' is
obvious to everyone, while 'burden' will only be obvious to people in
the field. 'in' is also shorter, and the meaning of 'burden' also
overlaps that of 'atmosphere' and 'moles' and so takes me a little longer
to parse.
I would therefore give moles_of_X_in_atmosphere the edge when considered
in isolation.
But I consider it to be just a small edge which can easily be trumped by
consideration of consistency within CF, IPCC, and other widely read
documents.
Just my 2cents,
Philip
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Karl Taylor wrote:
> Dear Jonathan and Martin,
>
> I don't normally wade in muddy waters, but perhaps a separate
> perspective would be useful. Problem is that I'm hopelessly uneducated
> in this area.
>
> I always thought that "burden" referred to some amount (either moles per
> unit area or mass per unit area) of a chemical species in the *entire
> atmospheric column*, extending from the surface to the top of the
> atmosphere. Is this correct?
>
> If it is invariably the total column amount, then I think
> atmosphere_mole_burden_of_X is a more specific definition than
> moles_of_X_in_atmosphere, which I should think could refer to moles per
> unit area or moles per unit volume, or even total number of moles in
> some limited region of the atmosphere. Of course the units attribute
> should make this clear.
>
> If, on the other hand, atmosphere_mole_burden_of_X is more general than
> total column amount per unit area, then I think moles_of_X_in_atmosphere
> is better because it is plainer English.
>
> Forgive me, if you've already gone over this ground before.
>
> cheers,
> Karl
>
>
> Martin Juckes wrote:
>> Dear Jonathan,
>>
>> thanks, we'll see if there are any other comments. But I don't think it is
>> fair to refer to the IPCC as a specialist community. I keep referring to the
>> usage there because it has gone through exhaustive review and is designed for
>> a wider audience than, for instance, articles in JGR which really are
>> targetted at a specialist community.
>>
>> cheers,
>> Martin
>>
>>> From: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>
>>> Subject: [CF-metadata] standard name proposal for CCMVal
>>> To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>>> Message-ID: <20080222135725.GA12861 at met.reading.ac.uk>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>
>>> Dear Martin
>>
>>> There have been many questions like this in the past, and there's not a right
>>> answer to be discovered - it's just a judgement. I agreed with you about
>>> "burden" before anyway, as you know; I took it up again because we had not
>>> had that discussion on this email list and because "burden" was questioned
>>> again. On the one side is the usage in the specialist field, and on the other
>>> is what is most readily understood by non-specialists, which is important too
>>> because CF metadata is used across disciplines. CF stdnames are somewhere
>>> between terminology and definitions, I think. Terminology is convenient,
>>> while definitions are self-describing.
>>
>>> Anyway, if the majority is for "burden" that's fine with me.
>>
>>> Cheers
>>
>>> Jonathan
>> _______________________________________________
>> CF-metadata mailing list
>> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Philip Cameron-Smith Energy & Environment Directorate
pjc at llnl.gov Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
+1 925 4236634 7000 East Avenue, Livermore, CA94550, USA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Fri Feb 22 2008 - 12:00:13 GMT
