On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, John.Dunne at noaa.gov wrote:
>
> Hi Keith,
>
> I see your point about the N2 production not being part of the
> regenerated production. However, I would say the same is true of NH4
> from deposition, runoff or supply from below, and the opposite true with
> respect to NO3 nitrified in the euphotic zone - all of which leaving
> 'new' with ambiguous meaning. I have always treated N2 production
> separately from new production in my own thinking for model-data
> comparisons of new production traditionally being measured from NO3
> incubations. Perhaps we should change the name from 'pnew' to 'pno3' to
> avoid confusion...?
If this is consistent with how others are using this diagnostic, and if
there is time for a change, I'd recommend it.
It would imply changing "long name", "proposed standard name", and "CMOR
variable name" for pnew, as well as for intpnew.
For pnew, the proposed standard name is
net_new_primary_mole_productivity_of_carbon. I propose changing it to
net_primary_mole_productivity_of_carbon_from_no3, with an analogous
change for intpnew.
Keith
******************************************************************
Keith Lindsay
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/oce/klindsay/
email: klindsay at ucar.edu phone: 303-497-1722 fax: 303-497-1700
Received on Wed Apr 21 2010 - 10:29:38 BST
