Hi All,
This is why I like that Martin is proposing tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_. We can then grapple with the challenge of emission height if/when it becomes necessary to make the distinction.
Best wishes,
Philip
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Philip Cameron-Smith, pjc at llnl.gov, Lawrence Livermore National Lab.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu [mailto:cf-metadata-
> bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Smith, Steven J (PNNL-JGCRI)
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 5:54 AM
> To: 'Schultz, Martin'; 'cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu'
> Cc: 'Gregory.J.Frost (Gregory.J.Frost at noaa.gov)';
> 'hugo.deniervandergon at tno.nl'
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Warming up old stuff - 4 (emissions)
>
> I'm very pleased to see this discussion taking place!
>
> The issue of emissions height is important. In many cases there is
> insufficient data to clarify this, so it's rather ambiguous (some IND
> emissions will be low, some will be high stacks). So we need to be
> careful not to imply precision that doesn't exist. perhaps a standard
> should state that in the default case height is not specified, and
> perhaps give an alternative specification for those cases where the
> data do exist and height can be specified.
>
> So I'm not sure it's a good idea to use the term surface in general,
> but there could have a variant where height is explicitly specified
> (this would currently be the case for aircraft emissions for example).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Schultz, Martin [m.schultz at fz-juelich.de<mailto:m.schultz at fz-
> juelich.de>]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 02:00 AM Pacific Standard Time
> To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> Cc: Smith, Steven J (PNNL-JGCRI); Gregory.J.Frost
> (Gregory.J.Frost at noaa.gov); hugo.deniervandergon at tno.nl
> Subject: RE: Warming up old stuff - 4 (emissions)
>
>
> Dear Alison (cc Hugo, Steve, Greg),
>
> > Looking back to the original proposal,
> > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/2011/027071.html,
> you
> > have provided definitions of the emissions sectors in terms of 2006
> IPCC
> > source categories. I have found the following document:
> http://www.ipcc-
> > nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/1_Volume1/V1_8_Ch8_Reporting_Guida
> > nce.pdf (section 8.5) which appears to contain the categories to
> which you
> > refer. Please can you confirm whether this is the best reference to
> use as I
> > think it will be important to include it in the definitions? Steve
> has supported
> > your sector definitions and they are clearly in wide use. There have
> been no
> > other comments regarding the categories.
>
> This appears to be the right document. To make sure, I ask Hugo,
> Greg and Steve to confirm. I guess the official reference web site is
> http://unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_ghg_inventories/items/2715.p
> hp, but that doesn't seem to offer the information in a single pdf file
> format.
>
> > When the carbon_dioxide emission names were introduced there was some
> > discussion as to whether to use
> > 'tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_X_due_to_emission' or
> > 'surface_upward_mass_flux_of_X_due_to_emission'. The units would be
> > the same in either case (kg m-2 s-1) and the distinction is really
> one of where
> > the emission takes place. The surface_upward_flux names apply only to
> > emission at the surface itself and are therefore 2D fields. The
> tendency
> > due_to_emission names refer to emission anywhere in the atmosphere,
> > including the surface, and are 3D fields. Obviously your aviation
> emissions
> > would be 3D, but is that also true of the others? I am happy to use
> either
> > form of words in these names, whichever you feel is the most
> appropriate.
>
> Back then we had decided on the
> 'tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content...' terms, because there are
> various other sectors for which "surface" is not fully appropriate,
> such as smoke stacks from power plants and industrial facilities, and
> even ship emissions (where the chimney is typically at ~30 m altitude
> and therefore often falls into the second or even third model grid box
> above the surface. The term "surface_flux" suggests that these
> emissions are indeed formulated as a surface flux boundary condition
> (i.e. technically they are introduced into the diffusion equation), and
> this is not always the case. The change in atmospheric mass content is
> the ultimate result and the term is more universal and easily covers
> all "strange" 3D emissions as well. But of course it is a bit
> unfortunate that carbon emissions are then named different from other
> species. Where this makes sense, we could perhaps define alias names
> for the carbon fluxes?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
> Forschungszentrum Juelich GmbH
> 52425 Juelich
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Juelich
> Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Dueren Nr. HR B 3498
> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: MinDir Dr. Karl Eugen Huthmacher
> Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof. Dr. Achim Bachem (Vorsitzender),
> Karsten Beneke (stellv. Vorsitzender), Prof. Dr.-Ing. Harald Bolt,
> Prof. Dr. Sebastian M. Schmidt
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
>
> Kennen Sie schon unsere app? http://www.fz-juelich.de/app
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Received on Fri Mar 09 2012 - 19:33:27 GMT
