Dear John, Jonathan and Karl,
Thanks all for setting me straight! I see now that we are fine to stick
with the tendency names as originally agreed.
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: cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu [mailto:cf-metadata-
> bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Karl Taylor
> Sent: 28 April 2010 00:46
> To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] CMIP5 ocean biogeochemistry standard names
>
> Hi Alison,
>
> If the column depth is time-invariant (in this case fixed as the
> uppermost 100 m), then the time-derivative of the vertical integral
> equals the vertical integral of the time-derivative, so the same name
> can be used in either case.
>
> Best regards,
> Karl
>
> On 27-Apr-10 11:56 AM, John.Dunne at noaa.gov wrote:
> > Hi Alison,
> >
> > Following the example of the European intercomparison (CARBOCEAN?),
> the
> > intent was to have two sets of variables for inorganic C, N, P, Fe,
> Alk
> > and Si for a tracer equation integrated over the upper 100m such as:
> >
> > dtracer/dt = Jtracer + tracer_physics
> >
> > where:
> >
> > 1) Jtracer = the net biological source sink terms integrated in the
> > upper 100m in units of mol m2 s-1
> > 2) dtracer = the time rate of change of the tracer(s) integrated in
> the
> > upper 100m in units of mol m2 s-1
> >
> > with the calculation of dtracer allows the back-calculation of the
> > accumulated role of physical processes on the tracers.
> >
> > Make sense? - John
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk
> > Date: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 8:10 am
> > Subject: RE: [CF-metadata] CMIP5 ocean biogeochemistry standard
names
> >
> >
> >> Dear John,
> >>
> >> I was looking again at the biogeochemistry names in preparation for
> >> adding them to the CMIP5 output document as accepted standard
> >> names. I
> >> am concerned that we may have given the wrong names to some of the
> >> vertically integrated rates of change in the top 100m of the ocean.
> >> Please can you advise on the definitions. Currently the names are
> >> listed as:
> >>
> >> tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_dissolved_inorganic_carbon
> >> tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_dissolved_inorganic_nitrogen
> >> tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_dissolved_inorganic_phosphorus
> >> tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_dissolved_inorganic_iron
> >> tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_dissolved_inorganic_silicon
> >>
>
integral_wrt_depth_of_tendency_of_sea_water_alkalinity_expressed_as_mol
> e
> >> _equivalent
> >>
>
tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_dissolved_inorganic_carbon_due_to_bio
> l
> >> ogical_processes
> >>
>
tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_dissolved_inorganic_nitrogen_due_to_b
> i
> >> ological_processes
> >>
>
tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_dissolved_inorganic_phosphorus_due_to
> _
> >> biological_processes
> >>
>
tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_dissolved_inorganic_iron_due_to_biolo
> g
> >> ical_processes
> >>
>
tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_dissolved_inorganic_silicon_due_to_bi
> o
> >> logical_processes
> >>
>
integral_wrt_depth_of_tendency_of_sea_water_alkalinity_expressed_as_mol
> e
> >> _equivalent_due_to_biological_processes
> >>
> >> The first two names are defined as follows:
> >> tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_dissolved_inorganic_nitrogen
> >> 'Net time rate of change of dissolved inorganic carbon in upper
> 100m'
> >> and
> >> tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_dissolved_inorganic_phosphorus
> >> 'Net time rate of change of nitrogen nutrients (e.g. NO3+NH4) in
> upper
> >> 100m'.
> >> If these quantities should be interpreted as the time rate of
> >> change of
> >> the vertically integrated mole_concentration, then these names are
> >> correct.
> >>
> >> However, the remainder of the names have definitions along the
> >> lines of:
> >> tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_dissolved_inorganic_phosphorus
> >> 'Vertical integral of net time rate of change of phosphate in upper
> >> 100m',
> >> which is clearly the vertical integral of the rate of change and
> >> not the
> >> rate of change of the vertical integral. I don't think those two
> >> thingsare identical, are they?
> >>
> >> If the order of the calculation is important then I think we should
> >> adopt the pattern used in the alkalinity names for all these names,
> >> i.e.,
> >>
>
integral_wrt_depth_of_tendency_of_mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorg
> a
> >> nic_phosphorus_in_sea_water, etc. Do you agree?
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Scanned by iCritical.
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > CF-metadata mailing list
> > CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> > http://*mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
--
Scanned by iCritical.
Received on Wed Apr 28 2010 - 04:22:54 BST
