Dear All,
Thanks Alison for your good summary on where we stand with the standard
name proposal for CCMVal and thanks to everyone else for comments. There
are only a few names left that are still under discussion, and Martin
and I agreed on the following:
1) We accept "moles_of_X_in_atmosphere" instead of "burden" as it is
precise and unambiguous.
2) We accept the use of "age_of_air" rather than "mean_age_of_air", and
will keep "mean_age_of_air" as the long_name. The definition could be
added in the standard name table: "Mean age of air is defined as the
mean time that a stratospheric air mass has been out of contact with the
well-mixed troposphere."
3) "mole_fraction_of_passive_ozone_in_air": we suggest to delete it from
the CF standard name list as it can mean different things; we will only
keep it as a long_name.
4) "potential_temperature_at_dynamic_tropopause" is fine.
5) "Cly, Bry, NOy":
Total families (the sum of all appropriate species in the model), e.g.
Cly = HCl + ClONO2 + HOCl + ClO + Cl + 2*Cl2O2 +2Cl2 + OClO + BrCl
NOy = N + NO + NO2 + NO3 + HNO3 + 2N2O5 + HNO4 + ClONO2 + BrONO2
Bry = Br + BrO + HOBr + HBr + BrONO2 + BrCl
Definition:
Cly: Total inorganic stratospheric chlorine (e.g., HCl, ClO) resulting
from degradation of chlorine-containing source gases (CFCs, HCFCs,
VSLS), and natural inorganic chlorine sources (e.g., sea salt and other
aerosols)
Bry: Total inorganic bromine (e.g., HBr and inorganic bromine oxides and
radicals (e.g., BrO, atomic bromine (Br), bromine nitrate (BrONO2))
resulting from degradation of bromine-containing organicsource
gases (halons, methyl bromide, VSLS), and natural inorganic bromine
sources (e.g., volcanoes, sea salt, and other aerosols)
NOy: Total reactive nitrogen; usually includes atomic nitrogen (N),
nitric oxide (NO), NO2, nitrogen trioxide (NO3), dinitrogen radical
(N2O5), nitric acid (HNO3), peroxynitric acid (HNO4), BrONO2, ClONO2
6. "nmvoc" has actually been removed from the CCMVal data request.
I hope this addresses all open issues. Thanks again for everyone?s
patience with the long list of names we suggested.
Best regards,
Veronika
Pamment, JA (Alison) schrieb:
> Dear All,
>
> The purpose of this posting is to summarize the status so far of all the
> standard names that have been proposed to meet needs of the CCMVal
> project. A total of 104 names relating to atmospheric chemistry and
> atmospheric dynamics have been proposed.
>
> Mole Fraction names
>
> The following names have attracted no discussion and are accepted:
> N.B. Because of the units of mole mole-1 we assign a canonical unit of 1
> (i.e. dimensionless quantity) to mole fractions in the standard name
> table.
> mole_fraction_of_nitrous_oxide_in_air; 1; N2O
> mole_fraction_of_hydrogen_chloride_in_air; 1; HCl
> mole_fraction_of_methyl_chloride _in_air; 1; CH3Cl
> mole_fraction_of_methyl_bromide_in_air; 1; CH3Br
> mole_fraction_of_carbon_tetrachloride_in_air; 1; CCl4
> mole_fraction_of_atomic_chlorine_in_air; 1; Cl
> mole_fraction_of_chlorine monoxide_in_air; 1; ClO
> mole_fraction_of_dichlorine peroxide_in_air; 1; Cl2O2
> mole_fraction_of_hypochlorous acid_in_air; 1; HOCl
> mole_fraction_of_chlorine_nitrate_in_air; 1; ClONO2
> mole_fraction_of_chlorine dioxide_in_air; 1; OClO
> mole_fraction_of_hydroperoxyl_radical_in_air; 1; HO2
> mole_fraction_of_hydrogen_peroxide_in_air; 1; H2O2
> mole_fraction_of_atomic_nitrogen_in_air; 1; N
> mole_fraction_of_dinitrogen_pentoxide_in_air; 1; N2O5
> mole_fraction_of_peroxynitric_acid_in_air; 1; HNO4
> mole_fraction_of_atomic_bromine_in_air; 1; Br
> mole_fraction_of_bromine_monoxide_in_air; 1; BrO
> mole_fraction_of_bromine_chloride_in_air; 1; BrCl
> mole_fraction_of_hydrogen_bromide_in_air; 1; HBr
> mole_fraction_of_hypobromous_acid_in_air; 1; HOBr
> mole_fraction_of_bromine_nitrate_in_air; 1; BrONO2
> mole_fraction_of_methyl_hydroperoxide_in_air; 1; CH3OOH
> mole_fraction_of_hydrogen_cyanide_in_air; 1; HCN
> mole_fraction_of_passive_ozone_in_air; 1; This is a tracer quantity
>
> The following mole fraction names have been proposed for cfcs and
> halons:
> mole_fraction_of_cfc11_in_air; 1; CFCl3
> mole_fraction_of_cfc12_in_air; 1; CF2Cl2
> mole_fraction_of_cfc113_in_air; 1; CCl2FCClF2
> mole_fraction_of_cfc113a_in_air; 1; CCl3CF3
> mole_fraction_of_cfc114_in_air; 1; CClF2CClF2
> mole_fraction_of_cfc115_in_air; 1; CClF2CF3
> mole_fraction_of_halon1301_in_air; 1; CBrF3
> mole_fraction_of_halon1211_in_air; 1; CBrClF2
> mole_fraction_of_halon2402_in_air; 1; C2Br2F4
> mole_fraction_of_halon1201_in_air; 1; CBr2F2
>
> Regarding the chemical names for cfc, hcfc and halon species the
> discussion has centred on whether IUPAC names should always be used. To
> date, no firm decision has been made to adopt IUPAC nomenclature for all
> CF standard names. There is a definite (and becoming more urgent) need
> to agree a coherent approach to the way CF will treat chemical species
> names in the future, but that discussion is probably best held
> separately from that of any specific set of proposals. I will shortly
> create a new ticket in the CF trac system which can be used as a place
> to hold the wider discussion.
>
> As far as the CCMVal proposals are concerned, apart from the question
> regarding IUPAC nomenclature, no objections have been raised to these
> names. The terms proposed, e.g. cfc11, are unique so will not give rise
> to ambiguity and they are already widely in use as has been pointed out
> in the discussion. IUPAC equivalences can be given in the explanation of
> the names. If a decision is made subsequently to use exclusively IUPAC
> (or indeed any other naming system) in CF then aliases would need to be
> created for any non-conforming names. In the present circumstances, I
> think that the proposed cfc and halon mole_fraction names can be
> accepted for use in the standard name table.
>
> I would like to ask for further clarification on the meaning of the
> following names:
> mole_fraction_of_inorganic_chlorine_in_air; 1; (Cly) Does this mean
> chlorine contained in inorganic molecules plus atomic chlorine? Does it
> cover a particular list of species or one that varies from model to
> model?
> mole_fraction_of_total_inorganic_bromine_in_air; 1; (Bry) This raises
> the same questions as the chlorine name
> mole_fraction_of_total_reactive_nitrogen_in_air; 1; (NOy) Again, please
> can you explain this term further. I am not clear as to what species
> are covered by "reactive nitrogen".
> mole_fraction_of_anthropogenic_nmvoc_in_air; 1; nmvoc means non-methane
> volatile organic compounds
> mole_fraction_of_biogenic_nmvoc_in_air; 1;
> NMVOC names have been discussed before when names were proposed for the
> HTAP project. They have not yet been included in the standard name
> table. The question again is what species are included in nmvoc. If
> the species vary from model to model then presumably there needs to be a
> way of recording in the Netcdf file which species were actually included
> in any particular dataset.
>
> Mole Burden and Tendency of Mole Burden Names
>
> The proposed mole_burden names are:
>
> atmosphere_nitrous_oxide_mole_burden; mol;
> atmosphere_cfc11_mole_burden; mol;
> atmosphere_cfc12_mole_burden; mol;
> atmosphere_cfc113_mole_burden; mol;
> atmosphere_cfc114_mole_burden; mol;
> atmosphere_cfc115_mole_burden; mol;
> atmosphere_carbon_tetrachloride_mole_burden; mol;
> atmosphere_halon1301_mole_burden; mol;
> atmosphere_halon1211_mole_burden; mol;
> atmosphere_halon2402_mole_burden; mol;
> atmosphere_halon1202_mole_burden; mol;
> atmosphere_methane_mole_burden; mol;
> atmosphere_carbon_monoxide_mole_burden; mol;
> atmosphere_molecular_hydrogen_mole_burden; mol;
> atmosphere_methyl_chloride_mole_burden; mol;
> atmosphere_methyl_bromide_mole_burden; mol;
> atmosphere_hcc140a_mole_burden; mol;
> atmosphere_hcfc22_mole_burden; mol;
>
> where atmosphere_X_mole_burden means the total number of moles of X in
> the atmosphere.
>
>
> Following on from the mole_burden names the following tendency names are
> also proposed:
>
> tendency_of_nitrous_oxide_mole_burden; mol s-1;
> tendency_of_atmosphere_cfc11_mole_burden; mol s-1;
> tendency_of_atmosphere_cfc12_mole_burden; mol s-1;
> tendency_of_atmosphere_cfc113_mole_burden; mol s-1;
> tendency_of_atmosphere_cfc114_mole_burden; mol s-1;
> tendency_of_atmosphere_cfc115_mole_burden; mol s-1;
> tendency_of_atmosphere_carbon_tetrachloride_mole_burden; mol s-1;
> tendency_of_atmosphere_halon1301_mole_burde; mol s-1;
> tendency_of_atmosphere_halon1211_mole_burden; mol s-1;
> tendency_of_atmosphere_halon2402_mole_burden; mol s-1;
> tendency_of_atmosphere_halon1202_mole_burden; mol s-1;
> tendency_of_atmosphere_methane_mole_burden; mol s-1;
> tendency_of_troposphere_methane_mole_burden; mol s-1;
> tendency_of_middle_atmosphere_methane_mole_burden; mol s-1;
> tendency_of_atmosphere_carbon_monoxide_mole_burden; mol s-1;
> tendency_of_troposphere_carbon_monoxide_mole_burden; mol s-1;
> tendency_of_middle_atmosphere_carbon_monoxide_in_air; mol s-1;
> tendency_of_atmosphere_molecular_hydrogen_mole_burden; mol s-1;
> tendency_of_troposphere_molecular_hydrogen_mole_burden; mol s-1;
> tendency_of_middle_atmosphere_molecular_hydrogen_in_air; mol s-1;
> tendency_of_atmosphere_methyl_chloride_mole_burden; mol s-1;
> tendency_of_troposphere_methyl_chloride_mole_burden; mol s-1;
> tendency_of_middle_atmosphere_methyl_chloride_in_air; mol s-1;
> tendency_of_atmosphere_methyl_bromide_mole_burden; mol s-1;
> tendency_of_troposphere_methyl_bromide_mole_burden; mol s-1;
> tendency_of_middle_atmosphere_methyl_bromide_mole_burden; mol s-1;
> tendency_of_atmosphere_hcc140a_mole_burden; mol s-1;
> tendency_of_troposphere_hcc140a_mole_burden; mol s-1;
> tendency_of_middle_atmosphere_hcc140a_mole_burden; mol s-1;
> tendency_of_atmosphere_hcfc22_mole_burden; mol s-1;
> tendency_of_troposphere_hcfc22_mole_burden; mol s-1;
>
> Firstly, the chemical species names are the same as those for the
> mole_fraction proposals which have been accepted.
>
> Secondly, if the term "mole_burden" is accepted for use, then the
> construction of the tendency names follows directly and both these sets
> of names could be accepted together.
>
> This brings me to the outstanding question regarding all these names,
> which is the adoption of the "burden" term itself. This has given rise
> to a considerable amount of debate on the mailing list and at present
> opinion is divided.
>
> There was some discussion of an alternative to using "burden" by
> describing the quantities as area integrals:
> area_integral_of_atmosphere_X_mole_content with use of cell_methods to
> express the fact that area is the entire globe. However, it was
> generally agreed that this is not the way to proceed. The remaining
> 'for' and 'against' arguments can be summarised as follows:
>
> 'For' the adoption of "burden":
>
> * "Burden" is used and defined in the IPCC AR4 report which is intended
> to be read by both experts and non-experts. It is therefore widely
> understood and its use in standard names will aid those searching for
> the data.
>
> * It allows names to be constructed with a parallel syntax to existing
> "content" names. "Content" had to be defined as a per unit area
> quantity for use in CF and "burden" could also have a clearly defined
> meaning that is consistent for all CF standard names. The CF definition
> of burden would be the total amount of substance contained in the full
> depth of the atmosphere and over the entire globe.
>
> 'Against' the adoption of "burden":
>
> * "Burden" is also sometimes used to mean the column integral of an
> amount, e.g., column mass, and its use to mean a global integral could
> therefore lead to confusion.
>
> * An alternative syntax has been proposed: "moles_of_X_in_atmosphere"
> where X is the name of the chemical species. This syntax is as concise
> as the proposed "burden" syntax and avoids the need to define any new
> terminology in standard names.
>
> N.B. If the alternative suggestion is adopted the tendency names would
> then need to be modified to have the syntax:
> tendency_of_moles_of_X_in_atmosphere.
>
> The various viewpoints have been discussed at some length and no new
> points have been raised on the mailing list in recent days. However, we
> have not yet arrived at a consensus view. Among those expressing a
> view, opinion is currently divided along the following lines:
>
> In favour of adopting "burden": Martin, Veronika
> Against adopting "burden": Christiane, Karl
> Willing to accept majority decision (but tending to lean against
> adopting "burden": Jonathan, Philip
>
> I have sought here to represent the current situation as fairly as
> possible. If I have unfairly represented anyone's views I trust that
> you will correct me.
>
> My own view (which is just one vote, like all the others) is against the
> adoption of "burden" because of the possibility of confusion with column
> integrals. Personally, I think that avoiding ambiguity is one of the
> most important considerations when constructing new standard names. If
> a term is widely used in the literature with two distinct meanings I
> think that confusion will inevitably arise.
>
> Taking all the above points into consideration, I think the weight of
> opinion is currently against adopting "burden" as a term in standard
> names. However, Veronika and Martin have given reasoned arguments as to
> why the term should be adopted. In order to make further progress on
> this issue within a reasonable timescale I would like first to put a
> question to Martin and Veronika: would you be willing to accept the
> majority view and adopt the "moles_of_X_in_atmosphere" syntax for
> standard names? Within CCMVal you would of course still be free to
> agree the use of a long_name attribute using "burden". If you feel that
> this is an acceptable solution, the names could be agreed immediately
> and included in the next update to the standard name table. If,
> however, your preference is still to use "burden" in the standard names,
> I think the sensible course of action now would be to call on the
> members of the standard names committee to comment and reach a decision
> on whether to adopt the term. Please note that the committee's decision
> would be final.
>
>
> Dynamical Names
>
> The following name is already in the standard name table:
> tendency_of_eastward_wind_due_to_gravity_wave_drag; m s-2;
> I think it is worth expanding the explanation to point out the
> relationship between this name and the names proposed for the components
> that contribute to the overall gravity wave drag.
>
> The following names have attracted no discussion and are accepted:
>
> northward_heat_flux_due_to_eddy_advection; W m-2;
>
> northward_eliassen_palm_flux; m3 s-2; "Eliassen Palm flux" is a widely
> used vector in the meridional plane, and the divergence of this flux
> appears as a forcing in the Transformed Eulerian mean formulation of the
> zonal mean zonal wind equation.
>
> upward_eliassen_palm_flux; m3 s-2;
>
> tendency_of_eastward_wind_due_to_eliassen_palm_flux_divergence; m s-2;
> "Eliassen Palm flux" is a widely used vector in the meridional plane,
> and the divergence of this flux appears as a forcing in the Transformed
> Eulerian mean formulation of the zonal mean zonal wind equation. Thus,
> "eastward_wind" here will generally be the zonally averaged eastward
> wind.
>
> northward_transformed_eulerian_mean_velocity; m s-1;
> eastward_transformed_eulerian_mean_velocity ; m s-1;
>
> tendency_of_eastward_wind_due_to_orographic_gravity_wave_drag; m s-2;
> Component of gravity wave drag due to orographic waves.
>
> tendency_of_eastward_wind_due_to_nonorographic_gravity_wave_drag; m s-2;
> Component of gravity wave drag due to non-orographic gravity waves.
>
> upward_flux_of_eastward_momentum_due_to_orographic_gravity_waves; Pa;
> Zonal orographic gravity wave stress (momentum flux).
>
> upward_flux_of_eastward_momentum_due_to_nonorographic_eastward_gravity_w
> aves; Pa;
> eastward_momentum indicates the component of the momentum which is being
> transported, eastward_gravity_waves indicates the class of gravity waves
> included, with eastward referring to the phase speed of the waves. There
> is thus no obvious redundancy here, though there is a tendency in the
> specialist community to do away with one "eastward" when referring to
> this quantity, since gravity waves with eastward phase speeds only carry
> eastward momentum.
>
> upward_flux_of_eastward_momentum_due_to_nonorographic_westward_gravity_w
> aves; Pa;
>
> tendency_of_eastward_wind_due_to_numerical_artefacts; m s-2; The actual
> tendency of the eastward wind will include a variety of numerical and
> diffusive effects: this variable is designed to allow the momentum
> budget to be closed.
>
> dynamic_tropopause_potential_temperature; K; The dynamical tropopause is
> very useful for interpreting the dynamics of the upper troposphere and
> lower stratosphere. As with regions in the previous section, it will be
> useful to have a description of the dynamical tropopause definition, as
> there are variations in the scientific literature. We would propose to
> give the variable an attribute "surface" containing the name of a global
> attribute which describes the surface used.
>
> The following name has not received much discussion since the proposals
> were posted to the list:
> mean_age_of_stratospheric_air or age_of_stratospheric_air.
>
> However, this name did prompt quite a lot of debate in an email exchange
> that took place while the proposals were under development. The first
> option, mean_age_of_stratospheric_air, is the one preferred by the
> CCMVal community. My understanding is that the term is widely used in
> the stratospheric literature to mean the time since an air parcel was
> last in contact with the troposphere, and so it is not the same as a
> residence time. The inclusion of the word "mean" in a standard name
> would not generally be acceptable because "mean" is a term that would
> normally be used as a cell_method to describe statistical processing
> within cell boundaries. However, my understanding is that in this
> instance, the word "mean" does not imply that any averaging has taken
> place within the cell bounds - rather it refers to the mean time taken
> for air parcels to reach their current location by various transport
> mechanisms from their "source" region. The term "age of air" is
> generally used in the stratospheric literature to refer to the overall
> distribution of transport times for air parcels reaching a particular
> location. I hope that someone will correct me if I have misunderstood.
>
> I have given this name a lot of thought, and while I appreciate that
> "mean" is not being used in the same sense as in cell_methods I confess
> to feeling uncomfortable about including it in the standard name. I am
> concerned that it may set a precedent for allowing other "non-standard"
> ways of using statistical terms into the standard names. A possible
> solution might be to have some way of defining a time axis as "time
> since contact with source region" so that we could then use
> "cell_methods: mean" along that axis and a standard name of
> "age_of_air". However, I think that this would need a modification to
> the conventions to allow a new type of time axis and I wonder if that is
> just adding extra complication for the sake of one standard name. I
> would welcome further views on this particular name.
>
> 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.
>
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Veronika Eyring veronika.eyring at dlr.de
Deutsches Zentrum fuer Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR)
Institut f?r Physik der Atmosph?re (IPA),
Oberpfaffenhofen, 82234 Wessling, Germany
Phone: +49-8153-28-2533, Fax.: +49-8153-28-1841
http://www.pa.op.dlr.de/~VeronikaEyring/
----------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Fri Mar 07 2008 - 11:32:38 GMT
