Dear Pierre et al,
I have been checking through the definitions of the carbon cycle names
and I think the name
surface_upward_mass_flux_of_carbon_due_to_emission_from_natural_sources
should more properly be called
surface_upward_mass_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon_due_to_em
ission_from_natural_sources. Any objections?
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 alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk
> Sent: 27 September 2010 13:13
> To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> Cc: P.Friedlingstein at exeter.ac.uk; cameronsmith1 at llnl.gov;
> pierre.friedlingstein at lsce.ipsl.fr
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] CMIP5 carbon cycle standard names
>
> Dear Pierre, Philip and Robert,
>
> I think Philip's last email pretty much sums up the position as I
> understand it. There are two standard names involved, one describing
> carbon release from all anthropogenic emissions and another describing
> carbon release from fossil fuels alone. The only question is whether
> these two quantities should most appropriately be named as surface
> fluxes or atmospheric tendencies. The other carbon cycle emissions
> names
> are unaffected by this discussion as they are clearly surface
> quantities.
>
> Pierre has explained that the anthropogenic/fossil fuel quantities do
> both include emissions from airborne sources such as aircraft and
> chimneys. The former are certainly not surface emissions; we could
> debate the latter. I think it would be misleading to label the
> emissions
> purely as surface fluxes and we should instead call them atmospheric
> tendencies. This way we are not tying the emissions to any particular
> vertical location. In fact, the definition of 'emission' in CF
standard
> names is as follows: ' "Emission" means emission from a primary source
> located anywhere within the atmosphere, including at the lower
boundary
> (i.e. earth's surface),' so it explicitly copes with the case of
> emissions aloft. Also, to answer Pierre's point regarding the meaning
> of
> tendency, in standard names it is defined as follows: '
"tendency_of_X"
> means derivative of X with respect to time.'
>
> I agree with Philip's point that it would be worth expanding the
> definitions where appropriate to explain more fully the relationship
> between surface upward fluxes and emissions into the atmosphere as a
> whole. I suppose that a surface downward flux would be considered
> equivalent to the contributions from various deposition processes.
>
> I think this has been a useful discussion as it has helped to clarify
> the definitions of the names as well as arriving at the most
> appropriate
> terminology. I think we should stick with the names as originally
> accepted:
>
tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carb
> o
> n_due_to_anthropogenic_emission; kg m-2 s-1
>
tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carb
> o
> n_due_to_emission_from_fossil_fuel_combustion; kg m-2 s-1.
>
> Robert contacted me by email with some comments regarding the
> consistency of the carbon cycle names:
>
> > Carbon_content
> > 1. leaf_carbon_content; kg m-2
> > 2. wood_carbon_content; kg m-2
> > 3. root_carbon_content; kg m-2
> > 4. carbon_content_of_miscellaneous_living_matter; kg m-2
> > 5. wood_debris_carbon_content; kg m-2
> >
> > 1, 2. 3 and 5 have the structure "X_carbon_content", while 4 has the
> structure "carbon_content_of_X". Is there any particular reason for
> not
> giving > 4 the name:
> > 4. miscellaneous_living_matter_carbon_content,
> > which would conform to the pattern?
>
> I think it was Jonathan who suggested
> carbon_content_of_miscellaneous_living_matter as an improvement on my
> original proposal of miscellaneous_living_compartments_carbon_content.
> However, I think that Robert is correct that we could take Jonathan's
> wording and change the order without loss of clarity. Does anyone
> object to using miscellaneous_living_matter_carbon_content?
>
> > Fluxes of carbon
> > 1. surface_upward_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon
> > [_due_to_emission_from_fires_excluding_land_use_change]; kg
> m-2 s-1 2.
> > surface_upward_mass_flux_of_carbon
> > [_due_to_natural_emission]; kg m-2 3.
> > surface_upward_carbon_flux
> > [_due_to_plant_respiration_for_biomass_growth]; kg m-2 s-1
(I
> have bracketted [...] the part of the name which is not relevant to my
> > question.)
> >
> > Is there any difference in meaning between these three syntactic
> forms
>
> > for carbon flux? It's not my field, but on the face of it they
> appear
> > to be alternative way of expressing the same quantity.
> >
> > I presume that there is a principle that, where possible, names
> should
> be constructed according to a consistent pattern (especially in the
> light of > Jonathan's work on rules for formulating names), so my
guess
> is that there are some reasons for the above differences but I am not
> sure
> > what they are. As you've probably guessed, my interest in this
> relates
> > to my own work on developing a grammar for standard names, and it is
> clearly desirable to reduce the number of grammar rules to a minimum.
>
> I agree that wherever possible we should stick to using a small set of
> grammar rules. However, there are occasions where being too rigid
> about
> the syntax can result in immensely long and unwieldy (and therefore
> difficult to understand) names. Often it is just a question of
> readability.
>
> I think we could call the second quantity
>
surface_upward_mass_flux_of_carbon[_due_to_emission_from_natural_source
> s
> ]
> to make it more consistent with the first without any loss of
> readability. Does anyone object to this change?
>
> Looking at the third name and trying to squeeze it into the same
> pattern
> would give something like:
>
surface_upward_carbon_mass_flux_due_to_emission_from_plant_respiration_
> f
> or_biomass_growth
> which I think is less readable, so I prefer the syntax without the
> 'emission'. Do others agree?
> (Incidentally, this would also affect another related name:
>
surface_upward_carbon_mass_flux_due_to_plant_respiration_for_biomass_ma
> i
> ntenance).
>
> Robert's email has caused me to re-read the names more carefully and I
> realise that I have neglected to make clear that many of the carbon
> fluxes are in fact mass fluxes (as opposed to mole fluxes, for
> example).
> I would like to slightly revise some of the names already accepted to
> include the word 'mass':
>
>
surface_upward_mass_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon_due_to_e
> m
> ission_from_fires_excluding_land_use_change; kg m-2 s-1
>
surface_upward_mass_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon_due_to_e
> m
> ission_from_grazing; kg m-2 s-1
>
surface_upward_mass_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon_due_to_e
> m
> ission_from_crop_harvesting; kg m-2 s-1
>
surface_net_upward_mass_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon_due_
> t
> o_emission_from_anthropogenic_land_use_change; kg m-2 s-1
>
surface_net_downward_mass_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon_du
> e
>
_to_photosynthesis_and_respiration_and_fires_including_land_use_change;
> kg m-2 s-1
> carbon_mass_flux_into_soil_from_litter; kg m-2 s-1
> carbon_mass_flux_into_soil_from_vegetation_excluding_litter; kg m-2
s-1
>
surface_upward_carbon_mass_flux_due_to_plant_respiration_for_biomass_gr
> o
> wth; kg m-2 s-1
>
surface_upward_carbon_mass_flux_due_to_plant_respiration_for_biomass_ma
> i
> ntenance; kg m-2 s-1
>
surface_net_downward_mass_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon_du
> e
>
_to_photosynthesis_and_respiration_and_fires_excluding_land_use_change;
> kg m-2 s-1.
>
> 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: Cameron-smith, Philip [mailto:cameronsmith1 at llnl.gov]
> > Sent: 23 September 2010 19:48
> > To: Pierre Friedlingstein; Pamment, Alison (STFC,RAL,SSTD)
> > Cc: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> > Subject: RE: [CF-metadata] CMIP5 carbon cycle standard names
> >
> > Hi Pierre,
> >
> > Sorry for causing confusion.
> >
> > I understood that the question was whether to introduce the
following
> > two standard names (for your purpose)
> >
> >
>
tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carb
> > on_due_to_anthropogenic_emission; kg m-2 s-1
> >
>
tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carb
> > on_due_to_emission_from_fossil_fuel_combustion; kg m-2 s-1
> >
> > Or these two,
> >
> >
>
surface_upward_mass_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon_due_to_a
> > nthropogenic_emission; kg m-2 s-1
> >
>
surface_upward_mass_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon_due_to_e
> > mission_from_fossil_fuel_combustion; kg m-2 s-1.
> >
> > Alison had originally proposed the former (tendency_), and you
> (Pierre)
> > argued for the latter (surface_).
> >
> > What I liked was Alison's description of why these tendency_ and
> > surface_ quantities are physically different because the tendency_
> > quantity also includes non-surface emissions.
> >
> > My first point was that your application included aircraft emissions
> so
> > that the tendency_ quantity is the correct physical quantity for
your
> > application (even if your data may put the aircraft emissions in the
> > wrong box). Hence, I recommended we add the tendency_ names to the
> > standard name list, rather than the surface_ names (following CF
> > tradition of not adding names unless needed).
> >
> > My second point was that we already have both tendency_ and surface_
> > names in the list, and many users could easily miss the physical
> > distinction. Hence, I suggested that we expand the descriptions of
> > these names in the list (when they occur) to highlight the
> distinction
> > (because, as you say, many people are likely to look for the
surface_
> > names).
> >
> > My third point was just to note that the one example of a standard
> name
> > similar to the surface_ names proposed above actually specifies the
> > _downward_ direction.
> >
> > I am somewhat sensitive to this issue because I am currently trying
> to
> > use various emission estimates and it is often hard to tell what is
> and
> > isn't included, and hence whether or not I am double counting.
> >
> > Best wishes :-),
> >
> > Philip
> >
> >
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Dr Philip Cameron-Smith, pjc at llnl.gov, Lawrence Livermore National
> Lab.
> >
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Pierre Friedlingstein [mailto:P.Friedlingstein at exeter.ac.uk]
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 10:50 AM
> > > To: Cameron-smith, Philip; alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk
> > > Cc: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> > > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] CMIP5 carbon cycle standard names
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > > I'm getting confused now.
> > > I understood Alison last proposal as keeping only one name :
> > >
> > >
> >
>
surface_upward_mass_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon_due_to_a
> > > nthropogenic_emission; kg m-2 s-1
> > >
> >
>
surface_upward_mass_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon_due_to_e
> > > mission_from_fossil_fuel_combustion; kg m-2 s-1.
> > >
> > > Philip's mail, seemed to imply that both names could be used as
> he
> > > liked Alison's distinction...
> > >
> > > Could you clarify what the final decision?
> > >
> > > For info, yes the data do include aircraft, chimneys,... emissions
> as
> > > these data are derived from country based reporting of fossil fuel
> > > trades.
> > > Hence the aircraft emissions from US carriers are in the US
numbers
> > and
> > > hence assigned on the US territory. This might be OK for US as
> most
> > of
> > > the flight are domestic, but I'm sure this is 99.9 % wrong for
> > Belgium
> > > ;-).
> > > Saying emissions are a vertical integral here would imply that
> planes
> > > are only flying up and down !
> > >
> > > Anyway, I will leave with either or definition (you'll just have
to
> > > explain what the "tendency" one mean to non-chemists...)
> > >
> > > Best
> > > Pierre
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 22/09/2010 17:28, Cameron-smith, Philip wrote:
> > > > Hi All,
> > > >
> > > > Even if the dataset doesn't have vertical information, if it
> > includes
> > > > aircraft emissions then the physical quantity it is quantifying
> is
> > > the
> > > > vertical integral rather than the surface emission. In which
> case
> > I
> > > > would favour tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_
> > > >
> > > > If there are no aircraft in the data, then do smoke stacks
> produce
> > > 'surface emissions'? An interesting question that could be
> debated.
> > > Hence, another advantage of tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_
is
> > > that it makes the question moot.
> > > >
> > > > BTW, FWIW, I note that the closest related standard name already
> in
> > > the table specifies the downward direction
> > >
(surface_downward_mass_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon).
> > > >
> > > > On a different note, I like Alison's distinction between
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_..._due_to_anthropogenic_emissi
> > > > on
> > > >
> > > > and
> > > >
> > > > surface_upward_mass_flux_of_..._due_to_anthropogenic_emission
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps we should cross-reference such standard names in their
> > > descriptions to help future users?
> > > >
> > > > Best wishes,
> > > >
> > > > Philip
> > > >
> > > >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > > -
> > > > -- Dr Philip Cameron-Smith, pjc at llnl.gov, Lawrence Livermore
> Nat.
> > > > Lab.
> > > >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > > -
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu [mailto:cf-metadata-
> > > >> bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Pierre Friedlingstein
> > > >> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 6:01 AM
> > > >> To: alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk
> > > >> Cc: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> > > >> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] CMIP5 carbon cycle standard names
> > > >>
> > > >> Alison,
> > > >> I see your point.
> > > >> As far as I know the anthropogenic emissions data will be
> surface
> > > >> fluxes. Data are based on country level consumption of fossil
> > fuel,
> > > >> they don't have the info on where in the air it is released...
> > > >> Pierre
> > > >>
> > > >> On 22/09/2010 13:04, alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Hi Pierre,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> My thinking here was that 'anthropegenic emissions' (which
> > > >>> presumably include fossil fuel emissions) and 'fossil fuel'
> > > >>> emissions themselves do not necessarily always occur at the
> > earth's
> > > >>> surface. For example, emissions from tall chimneys and
> aircraft
> > > may
> > > >>> occur at many levels in the atmosphere. It was not clear to
me
> > > that
> > > >>> these particular quantities in the CMIP5 tables are intended
> only
> > > to
> > > >>> account for
> > > >>>
> > > >> surface emissions.
> > > >>
> > > >>> If that is the case, then we certainly need to make it clear
> and
> > I
> > > >>> agree with your suggestion to label them as surface fluxes. So
> > > >>>
> > > >> instead
> > > >>
> > > >>> of introducing
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_ca
> > > >> r
> > > >>
> > > >>> bo n_due_to_anthropogenic_emission; kg m-2 s-1
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_ca
> > > >> r
> > > >>
> > > >>> bo n_due_to_emission_from_fossil_fuel_combustion; kg m-2 s-1
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I will add
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> surface_upward_mass_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon_due_to
> > > >> _
> > > >>
> > > >>> an
> > > >>> thropogenic_emission; kg m-2 s-1
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> surface_upward_mass_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon_due_to
> > > >> _
> > > >>
> > > >>> em ission_from_fossil_fuel_combustion; kg m-2 s-1.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> OK?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> 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: Pierre Friedlingstein
> > [mailto:P.Friedlingstein at exeter.ac.uk]
> > > >>>> Sent: 21 September 2010 16:41
> > > >>>> To: Pamment, Alison (STFC,RAL,SSTD)
> > > >>>> Cc: j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk; cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> > > >>>> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] CMIP5 carbon cycle standard names
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Hi Alison,
> > > >>>> Just wondering, why are the first two variables below named
as
> > > >>>> "tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of..."
> > > >>>> while all others are named as "surface_upward_mass_flux_of_
> > ..."
> > > >>>> Any reason ?
> > > >>>> I know the "tendency..." is used for other chemical
species...
> > But
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> here
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> for CO2 variables, I think intra-consistency should be
> favoured.
> > > No
> > > >>>>
> > > >> ?
> > > >>
> > > >>>> Best
> > > >>>> Pierre
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On 21/09/2010 13:40, alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> Dear Jonathan and Pierre,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Thank you both for your comments on the CMIP5 carbon cycle
> > names.
> > > >>>>> Looking back through this thread I think we have resolved
all
> > the
> > > >>>>> outstanding issues and so the following names are now
> accepted
> > > for
> > > >>>>> inclusion in the standard name table:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>
> > >
> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_ca
> > > >>
> > > >>>> r
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> bo n_due_to_anthropogenic_emission; kg m-2 s-1
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>
> > >
> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_ca
> > > >>
> > > >>>> r
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> bo n_due_to_emission_from_fossil_fuel_combustion; kg m-2 s-1
> > > >>>>> surface_upward_mass_flux_of_carbon_due_to_natural_emission;
> > kg m-
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>> 2
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> s-1
> > > >>>>> atmosphere_mass_of_carbon_dioxide; kg
> > > >>>>> carbon_content_of_products_of_land_use_change; kg m-2
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>
> > >
> surface_upward_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon_due_to_emis
> > > >>
> > > >>>> s
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> io n_from_fires_excluding_land_use_change; kg m-2 s-1
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>
> > >
> surface_upward_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon_due_to_emis
> > > >>
> > > >>>> s
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> io
> > > >>>>> n_from_grazing; kg m-2 s-1
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>
> > >
> surface_upward_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon_due_to_emis
> > > >>
> > > >>>> s
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> io
> > > >>>>> n_from_crop_harvesting; kg m-2 s-1
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>
> > >
> surface_net_upward_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon_due_to_
> > > >>
> > > >>>> e
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> mi ssion_from_anthropogenic_land_use_change; kg m-2 s-1
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>
> > >
> surface_net_downward_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon_due_t
> > > >>
> > > >>>> o
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> _p
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>
> > hotosynthesis_and_respiration_and_fires_including_land_use_change;
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>> kg
> > > >>>>> m-2 s-1
> > > >>>>> carbon_flux_into_soil_from_litter; kg m-2 s-1
> > > >>>>> carbon_flux_into_soil_from_vegetation_excluding_litter; kg
m-
> 2
> > s-
> > > 1
> > > >>>>> leaf_carbon_content; kg m-2 wood_carbon_content; kg m-2
> > > >>>>> root_carbon_content; kg m-2
> > > >>>>> carbon_content_of_miscellaneous_living_matter; kg m-2 (N.B.
> > > >>>>> 'miscellaneous' means carbon content of living matter apart
> > from
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>> those
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> individually named in the preceding three items)
> > > >>>>> wood_debris_carbon_content; kg m-2
> > surface_litter_carbon_content;
> > > >>>>>
> > > >> kg
> > > >>
> > > >>>>> m-2 subsurface_litter_carbon_content; kg m-2
> > > >>>>> fast_soil_pool_carbon_content; kg m-2
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>> medium_soil_pool_carbon_content;
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> kg m-2 slow_soil_pool_carbon_content; kg m-2
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>
> > >
> surface_upward_carbon_flux_due_to_plant_respiration_for_biomass_growt
> > > >>
> > > >>>> h
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> ;
> > > >>>>> kg m-2 s-1
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>
> > >
> surface_upward_carbon_flux_due_to_plant_respiration_for_biomass_maint
> > > >>
> > > >>>> e
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> na
> > > >>>>> nce; kg m-2 s-1
> > > >>>>> net_primary_productivity_of_carbon_accumulated_in_leaves; kg
> m-
> > 2
> > > >>>>> s-
> > > >>>>>
> > > >> 1
> > > >>
> > > >>>>> net_primary_productivity_of_carbon_accumulated_in_wood; kg
m-
> 2
> > s-
> > > 1
> > > >>>>> net_primary_productivity_of_carbon_accumulated_in_roots; kg
> m-2
> > > >>>>> s-1
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>
> > >
> surface_net_downward_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon_due_t
> > > >>
> > > >>>> o
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> _p
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>
> > hotosynthesis_and_respiration_and_fires_excluding_land_use_change;
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>> kg
> > > >>>>> m-2 s-1.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> To cope with the various fractional vegetation coverage
> > > quantities
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>> we
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>> will use the existing standard name area_fraction and
> introduce
> > > >>>>> new entries of primary_evergreen_trees,
> > > secondary_deciduous_trees,
> > > >>>>> secondary_evergreen_trees, C3_plant_functional_types,
> > > >>>>> C4_plant_functional_types into the area_type 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.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.
Received on Wed Sep 29 2010 - 06:08:01 BST
