[CF-metadata] proposed changes to various standard names

From: John.Dunne at noaa.gov <John.Dunne>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 10:00:00 -0400

Hi Jonathan,

Here are some thoughts:

> * We have introduced the phrase sinking_mole_flux. Could that be
> downwelling_mole_flux instead? I think "sinking" and "downwelling"
> mean the
> same thing, and "downwelling" was already in the lexicon.

The two definitions have different reference frames - Sinking is a
velocity relative to the fluid, while downwelling is a velocity of the
fluid itself.

> * What's the difference between inorganic_phosphorus and
> inorganic_phosphate,and likewise inorganic_silicon and
> inorganic_silicate?

phosphorus and silicon is more general, but I think they are intended to
mean the same things in each case.

> * For elemental_nitrogen, could we say molecular_nitrogen, which
> would be
> consistent with molecular_hydrogen and molecular_oxygen?

molecular nitrogen is only appropriate for N2 gas, like for H2 and O2,
distinct from nitrogen in other forms.

> * We have an existing name of surface_carbon_dioxide_mole_flux,
> whose sign
> convention is not clear. Could we change this to
> surface_up|downward_mole_flux_of_carbon_dioxide
> to be consistent with some newly introduced names?

This flux was previously aggreed to be positive up from the atmospheric
folks wanting consistency between the land and ocean estimates, but for
an ocean output alone, seems like there would be more flexibility.

Cheers, John
Received on Thu May 13 2010 - 08:00:00 BST