[CF-metadata] Modification of some existing CF standard names for chemical constituents

From: Philip J. Cameronsmith1 <cameronsmith1>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 18:28:14 -0800 (PST)

On Fri, 7 Nov 2008, Jonathan Gregory wrote:

> Dear Christiane
>

>> old: surface_carbon_dioxide_mole_flux
>> new: I am not sure
>> tendency_of_moles_of_carbon_dioxide_at_the_surface
>> tendency_of_moles_of_carbon_dioxide_in_atmosphere_due_to_net_surface_flux
>
> Perhaps it could be described as a tendency of atmosphere mole content. It
> is interesting that you currently have no names for surface fluxes, though,
> because they are all described as tendencies of atmospheric content. You
> could have a pattern such as surface_upward_mass|mole_flux_of_X. Is that
> a natural concept to consider in a chemistry model? We have surface fluxes
> of heat and water.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jonathan

Hi Jonathan,

This last case (above) appears to be another example where there appears
to be a special case for a specie rather than following the chemistry
pattern (like humidity_mixing_ratio), probably because it was created
before all of the atmospheric chemistry names were added.

There are many names in the CF list of the form:

tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_X_due_to_emission

Extending this pattern to CO2, and using moles instead of mass, would lead
to forms such as the ones Christiane suggested, or perhaps

tendency_of_atmosphere_mole_content_of_carbon_dioxide_due_to_emission

This re-raises the question of whether it is better to follow the
chemistry pattern for CO2, or consider it a special case.

Best wishes,

      Philip

------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Nov 07 2008 - 19:28:14 GMT