[CF-metadata] CF standard names for chemical constituentsandaerosols (resulting from a GRIB2 proposal)

From: Philip J. Cameronsmith1 <cameronsmith1>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:30:05 -0700 (PDT)

Hi All,

FYI, I am aware of at least one other intercomparison that wants to use CF
in the near future. (The IGAC-Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate (AC&C)
projects.) I am not aware of any conflict with the current proposal, in
part because I don't think the details have been decided yet for AC&C, but
I can easily imagine that different hydrocarbon lumping will be used.

Hence, I do think it would be a mistake to lock in the generic
'hydrocarbon' names (eg alkanes, alkenes, etc) without further
consideration, if we can possibly avoid it.

Best wishes,

      Philip


On Fri, 26 Sep 2008, Schultz, Martin wrote:

> Hi Philip,
>
> thanks for this! Very useful. I unanimously vote for the shorter and
> more common names, but I support your suggestion to include the IUPAC names
> in the description. Concerning the "lumped" discussion, we should not loose
> sight of what is happening on the GRIB2 front. In the end I believe that th
> harmonisation between GRIB2 and CF would weigh more than the best possible
> definition. But if it is not too late to change the species codes in GRIB2
> (once we will have closed this discussion) and they would be willing to
> accept for example the "greater_C4" model, then this woul dbe fine with me.
> Perhaps Martin Suttie, who is cc'd here can briefly state what the status of
> the GRIB2 proposal is now and what flexibility for details remains?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Martin
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philip J. Cameronsmith1 [mailto:cameronsmith1 at llnl.gov]
> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 1:47 AM
> To: Jonathan Gregory
> Cc: Martina Stockhause; Veronika Eyring; CF-metadata email list; Marco
> Giorgetta; Olivier Boucher; Schultz, Martin; Sebastian Rast;
> Martin.Suttie at ecmwf.int
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] CF standard names for chemical
> constituentsandaerosols (resulting from a GRIB2 proposal)
>
>
> Hi Jonathan, et al.
>
> In terms of IUPAC names, I assume you are referring to the following in
> Martina's list:
>
> formic_acid (IUPAC = methanoic acid)
> aceto_nitrile (IUPAC = ethanenitrile)
> acetic_acid (IUPAC = ethanoic acid)
>
> However, the IUPAC names are less familiar to me (I had to look up
> ethanenitrile) and, I suspect, less familiar to most chemists. I also
> understand that some of the common names (e.g. acetic acid) are actually
> IUPAC-approved nonsystematic names.
>
> Before making decisions on those, we might also consider the following
> species in the Martina's list:
>
> alpha_pinene (IUPAC = (1S,5S)-2,6,6-trimethylbicyclo[3.1.1]hept-2-ene)
> beta_pinene (IUPAC = (1S,5S)-6,6-dimethyl-2-methylenebicyclo[3.1.1]heptane)
> limonene (IUPAC = 1-Methyl-4-prop-1-en-2-yl-cyclohexene)
> hcfc141b (IUPAC = 1,1-Dichloro-1-fluoroethane)
> hcfc142b (IUPAC = 1-Chloro-1,1-difluoroethane)
>
> In the future, there may also be oxidation breakdown products of all these
> species for which the IUPAC name will get much longer.
>
> Already accepted chemicals from the CF list (below) that are not IUPAC
> systematic names include:
>
> isoprene (IUPAC = 2-Methyl-buta-1,3-diene)
> various CFCs (IUPAC = ...)
> formaldehyde (IUPAC = Methanal)
> methyl bromide (IUPAC = Bromomethane)
> xylene (IUPAC = 1,4-dimethylbenzene)
>
> My opinion is that CF should be somewhat pragmatic, and when common names
> are significantly shorter and/or better known than the official IUPAC
> systematic name, then I would suggest the common name be used (as has been
> done in CF to-date). However, I think it would be good to make sure for
> species with both IUPAC and common names, that the one not used in the CF
> standard name is included in the description.
>
> Coming back to the question of which name to use for the three chemicals at
> the top of my email: on balance, I would tip towards using the common names,
> but would accept using the IUPAC names.
>
> Best wishes, :-)
>
> Philip
>
>
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
>
>> Dear Martina, Philip, et al.
>>
>> New chemical constituents: Are the names proposed the ones which are
>> used invariably or normally for these species? Are they consistent
>> with the choices that have been made for other species in existing
>> names? (I don't know enough about this to say.) We have had previous
> discussions about using IUPAC names:
>> they have the advantage of being a separately maintained standard, but
>> they may be too long. In any case, we should try to avoid using
>> different conventions for different species. For instance, we have
>> ethane, ethene, ethyne; ethanol is now proposed (all IUPAC, I believe)
>> - is "acetic" consistent with that? For reference, I append to this
>> email all the existing species names (in standard names containing the
> word "mole" - possibly this doesn't pick up them all).
>>
>> "Lumped"/"total": At present, we have only two names with "total":
>> mole_fraction_of_total_inorganic_bromine_in_air
>> mole_fraction_of_total_reactive_nitrogen_in_air
>> I understand "total" here to emphasise that we are considering the
>> total of the mole fractions of all the species which "qualify" as
>> inorganic bromine, or reactive nitrogen, species. Is that the same as what
> you mean by "lumped"
>> e.g. in "lumped_alkanes"? Why do we need "lumped" or "total"? Would it
>> be clear enough just to say mole_fraction_of_alkanes_in_air?
>>
>> Philip commented
>>
>>> 2) What is meant by 'expressed_as_carbon'? Does it mean 'mass of
>>> carbon contained in species, ignoring all other chemical elements'?
>>> If so, would it be appropriate to put this into the units instead of the
> standard name?
>>
>> Yes, "expressed_as" means the amount of X contained in all the
>> species, ignoring the rest. In fact, in most of the existing names
>> with expressed_as, it is moles, not mass e.g.
>> mole_concentration_of_diatoms_in_sea_water_expressed_as_nitrogen (mol
>> m-3) which means the moles of N per m3, I believe. We adopted this
>> convention after a lot of discussion. I think it is correct to include
>> it in the standard name; CF generally does not use the units for
>> indicating quantities. CF units are SI (or equivalent) and consistent with
> the udunits package.
>>
>> I agree with Philip's comments about passive_ozone: passive tracers
>> are of course useful and need names, but it is likely we have to
>> consider each case carefully to find a clear name for it, because there
> are many kind of "passive"
>> in models. Could you describe what passive_ozone means in your
> application?
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>> existing CF species:
>>
>> alpha_hexachlorocyclohexane
>> ammonium
>> atomic_bromine
>> atomic_chlorine
>> atomic_nitrogen
>> benzene
>> bromine_chloride
>> bromine_monoxide
>> bromine_nitrate
>> carbon_dioxide
>> carbon_monoxide
>> carbon_tetrachloride
>> cfc11
>> cfc113
>> cfc113a
>> cfc114
>> cfc115
>> cfc12
>> chlorine dioxide
>> chlorine monoxide
>> chlorine_nitrate
>> dichlorine peroxide
>> dimethyl_sulfide
>> dinitrogen_pentoxide
>> ethane
>> ethene
>> ethyne
>> formaldehyde
>> gaseous_divalent_mercury
>> gaseous_elemental_mercury
>> halon1202
>> halon1211
>> halon1301
>> halon2402
>> hcc140a
>> hcfc22
>> hexachlorobiphenyl
>> hydrogen_bromide
>> hydrogen_chloride
>> hydrogen_cyanide
>> hydrogen_peroxide
>> hydroperoxyl_radical
>> hydroxyl_radical
>> hypobromous_acid
>> hypochlorous acid
>> inorganic_chlorine
>> isoprene
>> methane
>> methyl_bromide
>> methyl_chloride
>> methyl_hydroperoxide
>> molecular_hydrogen
>> nitrate
>> nitrate_and_nitrite
>> nitric_acid
>> nitrite
>> nitrogen_dioxide
>> nitrogen_monoxide
>> nitrous_oxide
>> organic_detritus
>> oxygen
>> ozone
>> peroxyacetyl_nitrate
>> peroxynitric_acid
>> phosphate
>> phytoplankton
>> propane
>> propene
>> silicate
>> sulfur_dioxide
>> toluene
>> total_inorganic_bromine
>> total_reactive_nitrogen
>> xylene
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dr Philip Cameron-Smith Atmospheric, Earth, and Energy Division
> pjc at llnl.gov Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
> +1 925 4236634 7000 East Avenue, Livermore, CA94550, USA
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Philip Cameron-Smith Atmospheric, Earth, and Energy Division
pjc at llnl.gov Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
+1 925 4236634 7000 East Avenue, Livermore, CA94550, USA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Fri Sep 26 2008 - 12:30:05 BST