Fine for me.
Pierre
On 29/09/2010 13:08, alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk wrote:
> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: P_Friedlingstein.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 452 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20100929/70965a18/attachment-0002.vcf>
Received on Wed Sep 29 2010 - 08:33:16 BST
