[CF-metadata] FW: HAMOCC variablen

From: John.Dunne at noaa.gov <John.Dunne>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 09:05:08 -0400

Hi Karl and Alison,

With reference to Karl's question about the appropriateness of the
variable standard name for iron supply to the ocean, I was asked to
supply my thoughts. The current variable in the 4/2 tables is:

tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_iron_due_to_deposition_and_runoff_and_sediment_dissolution

which, I think, works as a catch-all for all sources of available iron.
 Due to the late timing, I think we are now forced to leave it to the
groups to contribute model-specific supply terms beyond this catchall.
My only suggestion for an optional change would be to make the long
names for nitrogen and iron, "Surface downward net flux of Nitrogen" and
"Surface downward net flux of Iron" more consistent with their
definitions (as was done for Carbon) and changed to "Flux of Nitrogen
into Ocean by runoff, deposition and nitrogen fixation" and "Flux of
Iron into Ocean by runoff, deposition, coasts and sediments"

Cheers, John
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karl Taylor [mailto:taylor13 at llnl.gov]
> Sent: 02 April 2010 18:50
> To: John.Dunne at noaa.gov; Pamment, Alison (STFC,RAL,SSTD); Stephanie
> Legutke; John.Dunne at noaa.gov
> Cc: Corrine Le Quere; Ernst Maier-Reimer; Laurent Bopp;
> joachim.segschneider at zmaw.de; James Orr
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] HAMOCC variablen
>
> Dear all,
>
> [Here is some input from someone with a weak grasp of this area.]
> This seems very confusing. It doesn't seem to me that it makes
> sense to
>
> talk about surface flux of dissolved iron (except in rain drops I
> suppose). We could have a downward surface flux of iron that might
> (quickly, partially or completely) dissolve. If there is some
> component
> of the surface flux of iron that never dissolves (as perhaps is the
> case
> for the iron contained in dust particles), then there really is no
> need
> to keep track of that iron (i.e., it is effectively "inert"). [I
> note,
> however, we are requesting a 3-d field tentatively referred to as
> tendency_of_mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_iron_in_sea_water_
> due_to_biological_processes,
> which would indicate that there might be some flux of iron from the
> atmosphere that doesn't dissolve immediately, but might later at
> deeper
> depths.]
>
> As noted above I don't think it makes sense to call it "flux of
> dissolved iron", but would be o.k. with "flux of dissolvable iron",
> but
> this asks the model to know what iron will eventually dissolve,
> which
> seems impossible. But someone who knows more about this than I
> should
> weigh in.
>
> So first we need to decide what we want to ask for. Then we need
> to
> name it.
>
> One option might be to request
> "tendency_of_mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_iron_in_sea_water
> _due_to_surface_flux_of_iron"
> (or something similar).
>
> What say you all?
>
> Best regards,
> Karl
>
> On 30-Mar-10 5:55 AM, John.Dunne at noaa.gov wrote:
> > Hi Corinne,
> >
> > Good question! Given that we're bound to be using different
> solubility
> > fractions (mine are a climatology variable in space after Fan et al,
> > 2006), I'd prefer the definition be renamed to "Surface downward net
> > flux of dissolved iron", unless there are models that include
> subsurface
> > dissolution of dust, in which case I would suggest we add another
> > variable called "Surface downward net flux of total iron".
> Though I
> > would not want to fill this field for my model in order to avoid
> confusion.
> >
> > Cheers, John
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Corinne Le Quere<C.Lequere at uea.ac.uk>
> > Date: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 4:17 am
> > Subject: Re: {Spam?} Re: HAMOCC variablen
> >
> >
> >> Hi John,
> >>
> >> I'm forwarding you a question from Stephanie Legutke regarding on
> >> the
> >> CMIP5 variable definition. The "Surface downward net flux of iron",
> >> does
> >> that means soluble iron or total iron? can you please specify.
> Thanks.
> >>
> >> Best wishes,
> >> Corinne
> >>
> >> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Stephanie Legutke wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Hi Corinne,
> >>> as far as I know you are in some sense involved in the
> specification>>> of the list of marine bgc variables that is
> requested for the CMIP5
> >>> archive.
> >>> There is a question regarding the iron flux into the ocean (see
> >>>
> >> below).> Are you the right person to be addressed? If not you
> >> certainly know
> >>
> >>> whom to ask.
> >>> If you prefer the question to be formulated in English the best
> >>>
> >> would be
> >>
> >>> to contact Katharina Six who wrote the mail below.
> >>> best regards, Stephanie
> >>>
> >>> katharina six wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hallo Stephanie,
> >>>>
> >>>> Bei einer Variablen sind wir uns nicht sicher, was gewollt ist:
> >>>>
> >> "Surface>> downward net flux of iron "
> >>
> >>>> Der Eiseneintrag wird aus dem Staubeintrag berechnet, aber
> fuer die
> >>>> Biologie ist es wesentlich, welcher Form das Eisens vorliegt. Im
> >>>> allgemeinen nehmen die Modelle an,
> >>>> dass nur zwischen 1-10 % des eingetragenen Eisens biologisch
> >>>>
> >> genutzt>> werden kann. Fuer die Vergleichbarkeit des Outputs
> ist es
> >> also wichtig ,
> >>
> >>>> ob angegeben werden
> >>>> soll, wieviel Gesamteisen oder wieviel "bioavailable iron"
> >>>>
> >> eingetragen>> wird. Falls du dazu naehere Informationen bekommen
> >> kannst, lass es mich
> >>
> >>>> wissen.
> >>>> Gruss Tinka
> >>>>
> >>>> Stephanie Legutke schrieb:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hallo Tinka,
> >>>>> es gibt eine neue liste der verlangten variablen vom PCMDI
> >>>>> mit einigen neuen bgc variablen.
> >>>>>
Received on Thu Apr 15 2010 - 07:05:08 BST