Dear John D., Roy and John G.,
Thanks for your comments on the picophytoplankton names. It seems that
we are able to go ahead with the simplest solution, which is to define
picophytoplankton as having a size <2um to agree with general usage.
Therefore the four names
mole_concentration_of_picophytoplankton_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water
; mol m-3
mass_concentration_of_picophytoplankton_expressed_as_chlorophyll_in_sea_
water; kg m-3
tendency_of_mole_concentration_of_organic_carbon_in_sea_water_due_to_net
_primary_production_by_picophytoplankton; mol m-3 s-1
net_primary_mole_productivity_of_carbon_by_picophytoplankton; mol m-2
s-1
are now accepted for inclusion in the standard name table.
If anyone wishes to propose similar names for nanoplankton I'm sure they
could be included too.
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: 24 April 2010 01:02
> To: Lowry, Roy K
> Cc: Pamment, Alison (STFC,RAL,SSTD); cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu;
> taylor13 at llnl.gov; chris.d.jones at metoffice.gov.uk;
> pierre.friedlingstein at lsce.ipsl.fr; doutriaux1 at llnl.gov;
> James.Orr at lsce.ipsl.fr; ernst.maier-reimer at zmaw.de
> Subject: Re: RE: [CF-metadata] CMIP5 ocean biogeochemistry standard
> names
>
>
> After mulling it over, I'd suggest restricting the picoplankton
> definition to <2, and having a separate definition for nanoplankton,
if
> necessary. I think there is at least one model that has explicit
> nanoplankton, but not mine, so I'm not sure if it's necessary.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lowry, Roy K" <rkl at bodc.ac.uk>
> Date: Friday, April 23, 2010 9:14 am
> Subject: RE: [CF-metadata] CMIP5 ocean biogeochemistry standard names
>
> > Hi Alison,
> >
> > John's response got buried in my 'todo' pile. His 'flexible'
> > definition almost works for me, but I would prefer to take 2um (the
> > definition of field taxonomists) as the default, giving a
> > definition like:
> >
> > 'Picophytoplankton are the smallest size class of phytoplankton
> > with a maximum size of 2um for observational data and some models.
> > Other models may specify the upper limit elsewhere in the range 2-5
> > um, in which case the actual upper limit used should be specified.'
> >
> > Whether this specification should be done through the long name or
> > a scalar co-ordinate variable as John suggests is something I'm not
> > sure about. Anybody any preferences?
> >
> > Cheers, Roy.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk [mailto:alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk]
> > Sent: 23 April 2010 13:39
> > To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu; Lowry, Roy K; John.Dunne at noaa.gov;
> > taylor13 at llnl.govCc: chris.d.jones at metoffice.gov.uk;
> > pierre.friedlingstein at lsce.ipsl.fr; doutriaux1 at llnl.gov;
> > James.Orr at lsce.ipsl.fr; ernst.maier-reimer at zmaw.de
> > Subject: RE: [CF-metadata] CMIP5 ocean biogeochemistry standard
names
> >
> > Dear John and Roy,
> >
> > Apart from the iron flux name which was discussed and agreed in the
> > 'HAMOCC variablen' thread, there have been no further comments
> > during the last three weeks on the ocean biogeochemistry names.
> > There is one outstanding question regarding the definition and
> > naming of the picophytoplankton quantities:
> >
> > >
> > > > > > (1) I don't understand what the definition of
> > picophytoplankton> > > (carbon
> > > > > > concentration from the picophytoplankton (<2 um; < 5um)
> > component
> > > > > > alone) means Does it mean cells between 2 and 5 um in
> > size, in
> > > > > which> case it should be expressed as 2-5um, or does it mean
> > > > > something else?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree that this definition doesn't make sense as it stands -
> > I'll
> > > > > check with John Dunne.
> > > >
> > > > The wishy-washiness of this definition was intended to account
> for
> > > the
> > > > fact that some groups make their distinction of smallest
> > > phytoplankton
> > > > class at the <2um size, while others do it at the <5um size. I
> > agree
> > > > that it would be better to have a single cut off for clarity.
> > > Perhaps
> > > > we should use the '2um' designation to be consistent with the
> > > > traditional definition of 'picoplankton' (where nanoplankton is
> > the> 2-5
> > > > umclass), and leave the individual participants to determine
> > whether
> > > > they think their definition is consistent with this designation.
> > >
> > > >From the CF point of view, adopting a single cut off of <2um for
> > > picophytoplankton would certainly be clear. However, will this
> > cause
> > > problems for modelling groups with different cut off sizes? I.e.
> > will
> > > it make intercomparison between models difficult? As an
> > alternative,
> > > we could write the definitions to cope with the vagueness, for
> > > example:
> > > "Picophytoplankton are the smallest class of phytoplankton. The
> > maximum
> > > size of picophytoplankton is in the range 2-5 um and may vary
> > between
> > > models. A scalar coordinate variable should be used to specify
> > the
> > > maximum size of picophytoplankton included in the data variable."
> > >
> > > This would then require the different modelling groups to specify
> > the
> > > threshold they used, but would allow them all to write their data
> > with
> > > the same standard name. (We could even give the coordinate
> > variable a
> > > standard name such as 'plankton_size_threshold'). Would that be a
> > > suitable solution? Or do you still prefer to stick with the
> > single cut
> > > off?
> >
> > I am hoping that John will advise on which is the best approach to
> > take with these names as I think we are close to being able to
> > accept them.
> > I have temporarily removed these particular names from the attached
> > spreadsheet.
> > The remaining names, including those modified in response to Roy's
> > comments are now accepted for inclusion in the standard name table
> > and are listed in the attached spreadsheet. To summarize, the
> > modifications relative to the original proposals are as follows:
> > Row 13: correction to typo in 'concentration'
> > Rows 37-38: 'organic_carbon' changed to
> > 'particulate_organic_matter_expressed_as_carbon'
> > Row 42: 'particulate_organic_carbon' changed to
> > 'particulate_organic_matter_expressed_as_carbon'Rows 51-54:
> > 'organic_carbon' changed to
> > 'particulate_organic_matter_expressed_as_carbon'
> > Rows 61-62: 'particles' changed to 'inorganic_particles'
> >
> > I should also say that the clarifications to the definitions that
> > have been suggested by both Roy and John during the discussion of
> > these names will be included when the names are added to the table.
> >
> > 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.ukChilton, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu [mailto:cf-metadata-
> > > bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk
> > > Sent: 01 April 2010 13:28
> > > To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu; rkl at bodc.ac.uk; John.Dunne at noaa.gov
> > > Cc: chris.d.jones at metoffice.gov.uk;
> > pierre.friedlingstein at lsce.ipsl.fr;
> > > doutriaux1 at llnl.gov; James.Orr at lsce.ipsl.fr;
> > ernst.maier-reimer at zmaw.de
> > > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] CMIP5 ocean biogeochemistry standard
> > names>
> > > Dear Roy and John,
> > >
> > > Roy wrote:
> > >
> > > > The one point I think you have possibly misunderstood is the one
> > > about
> > > > 'miscellaneous'. It's not the word, so much as the possibility
> of
> > > the
> > > > concept having meaning that changes with time that worries me.
> > This
> > > > can be addressed through the definition by a statement that
> > > > 'miscellaneous means phytoplankton that are not diatoms,
> > diazotrophs,
> > > > calcareous phytoplankton or picophytoplankton'. I did briefly
> > > consider
> > > > the phrase
> > 'phytoplankton_not_diatom_diazotroph_calcareous_pico' in
> > > the
> > > > standard name, but then thought better of it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, I see now. I agree that the definitions should contain a
> > > statement such as the one you suggest. Thanks for not suggesting
> > the
> > > other version of the name :)
> > >
> > > John wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > (1) I don't understand what the definition of
> > picophytoplankton> > > (carbon
> > > > > > concentration from the picophytoplankton (<2 um; < 5um)
> > component
> > > > > > alone) means Does it mean cells between 2 and 5 um in
> > size, in
> > > > > which> case it should be expressed as 2-5um, or does it mean
> > > > > something else?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree that this definition doesn't make sense as it stands -
> > I'll
> > > > > check with John Dunne.
> > > >
> > > > The wishy-washiness of this definition was intended to account
> for
> > > the
> > > > fact that some groups make their distinction of smallest
> > > phytoplankton
> > > > class at the <2um size, while others do it at the <5um size. I
> > agree
> > > > that it would be better to have a single cut off for clarity.
> > > Perhaps
> > > > we should use the '2um' designation to be consistent with the
> > > > traditional definition of 'picoplankton' (where nanoplankton is
> > the> 2-5
> > > > umclass), and leave the individual participants to determine
> > whether
> > > > they think their definition is consistent with this designation.
> > >
> > > >From the CF point of view, adopting a single cut off of <2um for
> > > picophytoplankton would certainly be clear. However, will this
> > cause
> > > problems for modelling groups with different cut off sizes? I.e.
> > will
> > > it make intercomparison between models difficult? As an
> > alternative,
> > > we could write the definitions to cope with the vagueness, for
> > > example:
> > > "Picophytoplankton are the smallest class of phytoplankton. The
> > maximum
> > > size of picophytoplankton is in the range 2-5 um and may vary
> > between
> > > models. A scalar coordinate variable should be used to specify
> > the
> > > maximum size of picophytoplankton included in the data variable."
> > >
> > > This would then require the different modelling groups to specify
> > the
> > > threshold they used, but would allow them all to write their data
> > with
> > > the same standard name. (We could even give the coordinate
> > variable a
> > > standard name such as 'plankton_size_threshold'). Would that be a
> > > suitable solution? Or do you still prefer to stick with the
> > single cut
> > > off?
> > >
> > > John wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > (3) 'mole_concenration_of_dissolved_iron_in_sea_water'.
> > Besides> > the
> > > > > > typo (concentration), does this refer to iron in all
> oxidation
> > > > > states> (Fe2+/Fe3+) and chemical environments. If so,
> > calling it
> > > > > 'total iron'
> > > > > > might be better.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for pointing out the typo - I'll correct it. I think
> > > whenever
> > > > > the word "total" has come up in standard names proposals in
the
> > > past
> > > > > that we have tried to avoid using it. Indeed, there are no
> > > standard
> > > > > names that use the term. I think "iron" essentially should
> > be
> > > > > understood to mean "total iron" and if we want more specific
> > names> > for
> > > > > Fe2+, etc, we should introduce terms such as "divalent iron"
in
> > the
> > > > > waythat we have done for elemental and divalent mercury in
> > the
> > > > > atmosphere.Having said all that, I think it would be helpful
> > if
> > > > > John could clarify the definition.
> > > >
> > > > In the geochemical literature, 'total' iron refers to the sum of
> > iron
> > > > associated with the particulate organic, particulate inorganic,
> > > > dissolved organic and dissolved inorganic components (both Fe2+
> > and> > Fe3+). As we treat phytoplankton iron and particulate
> > detrital iron
> > > > separately from dissolved, 'total' does not equal 'dissolved'.
> > As
> > > > most, if not all, of the models do not distinguish between Fe2+
> > and
> > > > Fe3+,
> > I
> > > > think we could simply add a note in the definition to the effect
> > that
> > > > 'dissolved' is intended to represent both Fe2+ and Fe3+.
> > >
> > > Agreed. I'll add a sentence to the definitions.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Scanned by iCritical.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > CF-metadata mailing list
> > > CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> > > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
> >
> > --
> > Scanned by iCritical.
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC
> > is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents
> > of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless
> > it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to
> > NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.
> >
> >
--
Scanned by iCritical.
Received on Mon Apr 26 2010 - 04:59:53 BST
