[CF-metadata] CF standard names for echam5-hammoz model?(aerosol-chemistry-climate)

From: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:43:13 +0000

Dear Heinke

> atmosphere_number_content_of_X (new physical parameter)
>
> This was Jonathan's proposal.
> Christiane talked about _in_air. But I think that does not fit.
> For example _in_cloud is not in_air. Is that right, Christiane?

I think in_cloud is in_air, and I suggested to Christiane using cell_methods
to indicate the cloud portion of the grid box, if that is required. I think
"atmosphere" indicates that the content is a property of the whole atmosphere,
whereas in_air means a local property of the medium. I know this distinction
is not strictly necessary; we have always made it like that because it is
more like the terms that people normally use e.g. density of air, but
energy content of atmosphere.

> _in_air_of_atmosphere_layer
Sorry, I don't understand what this construction means e.g.
> mass_fraction_of_ozone_in_air_of_atmosphere_layer
What is the difference between that and
mass_fraction_of_ozone_in_air?

> We changed the units to micrograms/m3 ...
Any units which are dimensionally equivalent can be specified. CF doesn't say
whether it should be um m-3 or kg m-3. Either could be stated in the standard
name table as the "canonical units" for the quantity, but it is probably best
to be consistent.

> Christiane said:
> There is not exact definition for Aitken, Coarse mode particles, hence I
> would suggest to avoid these names in CF.
>
> We agree that there isn't clear definition for these aerosol classes.
> Alternative
> could be to give the exact distribution properties in the CF name, for
> example coarse
> mode can be described as particles with number median radius greater
> than 0.5 micrometers.
>
> Could we use a scalar coordinate variable for the radius?
Yes, we could. But for other size classes, Christiane did use names e.g. pm10.

> atmosphere_aerosol_refractive_index_imaginary_part
etc.
Could we say imaginary_part_of_atmosphere_aerosol_refractive_index or
atmosphere_aerosol_imaginary_refractive_index?
? I think it would be better to have the "imaginary" before the "refractive
index" somehow. This is a bit like eastward and northward components.
(The same for the real part.)

Cheers

Jonathan
Received on Tue Nov 18 2008 - 06:43:13 GMT