Concerning the passivity of passive ozone, I believe that it is absolute. I.e.
it has no feedbacks on the model evolution. If we start listing the feedbacks
which it doesn't have we need to anticipate all feedbacks for true ozone that
might be incorporated into the models in the future. Isn't it simpler to say
that there are none?
Chemically_passive would be wrong, as it is also radiatively passive.
potential_temperature_at_dynamic_tropopause is fine, I hadn't spotted the
usage with other multiword level names.
cheers,
Martin
>
> Dear Jonathan,
>
> Thank you for your comments.
>
> > I noticed two small things
> > which I should have commented on before, but didn't notice then
> > unfortunately.
> > It may be too late now, but anyway:
> >
> > > mole_fraction_of_passive_ozone_in_air; 1; This is a tracer quantity
> > The definition at least should make clear what "passive" means in this
> > context,
> > or (even better) would it be possible to use something more explicit?
> > In an
> > ocean context, we might have a "passive salinity" tracer, for
> instance,
> > which
> > would be one that did not affect density, but I don't suppose that
> > would be
> > the same meaning of "passive" as in atmospheric chemistry. You can
> > imagine
> > having a "passive" chemical tracer in the ocean, for which it could be
> > ambiguous what "passive" meant. So I fear this is potentially
> > confusing.
> >
> I hadn't appreciated that there could be more than one kind of
> passivity! I think that we could clarify this by a small modification
> to the name:
> mole_fraction_of_passive_ozone_in_air ->
> mole_fraction_of_chemically_passive_ozone_in_air
>
> > > dynamic_tropopause_potential_temperature; K
> > I would suggest the order potential_temperature_at_dynamic_tropopause,
> > for
> > consistency with the treatment of other multi-word "level" names.
> >
> I should have spotted this, sorry.
> potential_temperature_at_dynamic_tropopause is better.
>
> Martin do you have any objection to these slightly modified names?
>
> > Regarding
> > > mean_age_of_stratospheric_air
> > my understanding from the earlier discussion (subject to correction by
> > experts)
> > is that in a Lagrangian model it would be a mean over the parcels in a
> > gridbox,
> > but in an Eulerian model it is the concentration of an age tracer, and
> > hence
> > in practice a volume-mean over the gridbox, just like most intensive
> > quantities
> > (such as temperature). In either case the "mean" could be indicated by
> > cell_
> > methods.
> >
> Ah, okay. If that is the case then we could accept the name as
> "age_of_stratospheric_air" and use cell_methods as you suggest. In the
> Lagrangian case would you need to have an axis which indexed the
> different parcels? Please forgive my ignorance about this - I have no
> experience of using Lagrangian models.
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
>
> End of CF-metadata Digest, Vol 60, Issue 2
> ******************************************
>
>
Received on Thu Mar 06 2008 - 10:10:25 GMT
