Dear John,
Thanks for your comments on the iron flux standard name. Following your
advice I think it makes sense to leave it as
tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_iron_due_to_deposition_and_runoff_and_
sediment_dissolution.
Best wishes,
Alison
------
Alison Pamment Tel: +44 1235 778065
NCAS/British Atmospheric Data Centre Fax: +44 1235 446314
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Email: alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk
Chilton, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John.Dunne at noaa.gov [mailto:John.Dunne at noaa.gov]
> Sent: 15 April 2010 14:05
> To: Karl Taylor; Pamment, Alison (STFC,RAL,SSTD)
> Cc: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: Re: FW: [CF-metadata] HAMOCC variablen
>
>
> 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_wate
> r
> > _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.
> > >>>>>
--
Scanned by iCritical.
Received on Fri Apr 23 2010 - 05:14:56 BST
