[CF-metadata] Warming up old stuff - 4 (emissions)

From: Schultz, Martin <m.schultz>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 12:08:24 +0000

Dear Alison,

     fine on both accounts. I suggest to use the comment attribute as you suggested and give the appropriate hint in the definition text. I also second the addition of Philip concerning the specification of the units. This later topic may come up again -- if I recall correctly there was an older discussion on such "atom-based" mass units, which are quite commonly used. For now, we should assume that mass is mass of compound, and when the need arises, we will have to introduces a couple of "clones" with the "_expressed_as" addition to the standard_names.

Best regards,

Martin

-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] Im Auftrag von cf-metadata-request at cgd.ucar.edu
Gesendet: Montag, 9. Juli 2012 09:58
An: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
Betreff: CF-metadata Digest, Vol 111, Issue 8

Send CF-metadata mailing list submissions to
        cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        cf-metadata-request at cgd.ucar.edu

You can reach the person managing the list at
        cf-metadata-owner at cgd.ucar.edu

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of CF-metadata digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Standard names for sea level change (Cameron-smith, Philip)
   2. Re: Standard names for sea level change (Cameron-smith, Philip)
   3. Re: [CF Metadata] #90: Collection of CF enhancements for
      interoperable applications (Heiko Klein)
   4. Re: Warming up old stuff - 4 (emissions)
      (alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk)
   5. Re: Warming up old stuff - 4 (emissions)
      (alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 10:25:15 -0700
From: "Cameron-smith, Philip" <cameronsmith1 at llnl.gov>
To: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>,
        "cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu" <cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard names for sea level change
Message-ID:
        <DDB20D8288D53E4D811673C30FAB857D01C8FB80E6D7 at NSPEXMBX-B.the-lab.llnl.gov>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hi Jonathan, et al.,

We do have a number of other cases where we effectively specify integrals/averages within std_names. For example, we have atmosphere_moles_of_X as a global integral. We also have atmosphere_mass_content_of_X as a column integral.

I know there are advantages and disadvantages. Personally, I believe the bar should be high to be included as a separate standard name, but there are cases such as these which pass over the bar. I am personally happy to leave these global_average_sea_level names as they are.

Best wishes,

       Philip

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Philip Cameron-Smith, pjc at llnl.gov, Lawrence Livermore National Lab.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------



> -----Original Message-----
> From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf
> Of Jonathan Gregory
> Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 4:50 AM
> To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard names for sea level change
>
> Dear all
>
> Regarding the existing standard_name global_average_sea_level_change
> and the corresponding ones for steric and thermosteric:
>
> It is anomalous to have "global" and "average" in a standard name
> because, as Philip says, we usually put these kinds of thing in
> cell_methods. The reason for having them in the standard name in these
> cases is that these global quantities are commonly referred to without
> being regarded as the global average of something. You can imagine
> other quantities which refer to the whole world; for example we might
> have a standard name for the age of the Earth.
>
> Although it's a fuzzy distinction, it's not quite like global average
> air temperature change, for example. We do not have a standard name
> for that, because people do regard it as the global average of local
> air temperature change. That is how it is computed. Global average sea
> level change, before satellite altimetry began, is estimated from
> sparse measurements by various methods.
>
> However, we could change to using more systematic names, although it
> would be a bit more obscure. global_average_sea_level_change could be
> described by a standard_name of change_in_ocean_thickness with
> cell_methods of "area: mean over sea" for the whole world.
> global_average_thermosteric_sea_level_change
> could be change_in_ocean_thickness_due_to_thermosteric_change. Should
> we make that change (with aliases)?
>
> Cheers
>
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata


------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 10:37:59 -0700
From: "Cameron-smith, Philip" <cameronsmith1 at llnl.gov>
To: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>,
        "cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu" <cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard names for sea level change
Message-ID:
        <DDB20D8288D53E4D811673C30FAB857D01C8FB80E6D8 at NSPEXMBX-B.the-lab.llnl.gov>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hi Olivier, et al.,

I note that we have several different types of sea_level defined in CF. I have copied here the ones I found (there may be others). Does one of these meet your needs?

global_average_sea_level_change

Global average sea level change is due to change in volume of the water in the ocean, caused by mass and/or density change, or to change in the volume of the ocean basins, caused by tectonics etc. It is sometimes called "eustatic", which is a term that also has other definitions. It differs from the change in the global average sea surface height relative to the centre of the Earth by the global average vertical movement of the ocean floor. Zero sea level change is an arbitrary level.

global_average_steric_sea_level_change

Global average steric sea level change is caused by changes in sea water density due to changes in temperature (thermosteric) and salinity (halosteric). Zero sea level change is an arbitrary level.

global_average_thermosteric_sea_level_change

Global average thermosteric sea level change is the part caused by change in density due to change in temperature i.e. thermal expansion. Zero sea level change is an arbitrary level.

ocean_rigid_lid_pressure_expressed_as_sea_surface_height_above_geoid

"Ocean rigid lid pressure" means the pressure at the surface of an ocean model assuming that it is bounded above by a rigid lid.

sea_surface_height_above_geoid
alias: sea_surface_elevation
alias: sea_surface_elevation_anomaly
The geoid is a surface of constant geopotential with which mean sea level would coincide if the ocean were at rest. (The volume enclosed between the geoid and the sea floor equals the mean volume of water in the ocean.) In an ocean GCM the geoid is the surface of zero depth, or the rigid lid if the model uses that approximation. "Sea surface height" is a time-varying quantity. By definition of the geoid, the global average of the time-mean sea surface height (i.e. mean sea level) above the geoid must be zero. The standard name for the height of the sea surface above mean sea level is sea_surface_height_above_sea_level. The standard name for the height of the sea surface above the reference ellipsoid is sea_surface_height_above_reference_ellipsoid.

sea_surface_height_above_sea_level
alias: sea_surface_height

sea_surface_height_above_reference_ellipsoid
"Sea surface height" is a time-varying quantity. A reference ellipsoid is a mathematical figure that approximates the geoid. The geoid is a surface of constant geopotential with which mean sea level would coincide if the ocean were at rest. The ellipsoid is an approximation because the geoid is an irregular shape. A number of reference ellipsoids are defined for use in the field of geodesy. The standard name for the height of the sea surface above the geoid is sea_surface_height_above_geoid. The standard name for the height of the sea surface above mean sea level is sea_surface_height_above_sea_level.

    Best wishes,

       Philip

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Philip Cameron-Smith, pjc at llnl.gov, Lawrence Livermore National Lab.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------



> -----Original Message-----
> From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf
> Of Jonathan Gregory
> Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 8:01 AM
> To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard names for sea level change
>
> Dear Olivier
>
> > I appreciate the idea suggested by Philip, which is remove 'local'
> > and simply
> use "tendency_of_average_sea_level_change". I think it's a fine solution.
>
> I'm sorry to say I still have concerns with this:
>
> * Why is "average" needed? As Philip said, we usually convey that idea
> in the cell_methods, which can distinguish if necessary between a
> local point measurement e.g. "lat: lon: point" and an area-average "lat: lon: mean"
> or "area: mean". Or does "average" refer to the time-mean?
>
> * "Sea level change" is not well-defined. Could you say more precisely
> what this quantity is, if it is not change in ocean thickness (that was my guess)?
>
> Best wishes and thanks
>
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata


------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2012 15:53:52 +0200
From: Heiko Klein <Heiko.Klein at met.no>
To: "cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu" <cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
Cc: Martin Schultz <m.schultz at fz-juelich.de>
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] [CF Metadata] #90: Collection of CF
        enhancements for interoperable applications
Message-ID: <4FF83F70.5000909 at met.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

Martin,

I'll answer on the mailing-list since I have no trac-account.

2) seems fine to me, since it's only an extension to netcdf4/CDM-2.

1) I've never had problems with the current set of rules, so some more concrete examples where the current rules don't work might help persuade me.

And even your proposal is not completely clear: Do you really want to have both 'standard_name' and 'axis', or would one be enough. Requiring both 'axis = "X"' and 'standard_name = "projection_x_axis"' does not look efficient.


Best regards,

Heiko

On 2012-07-06 16:07, Martin Schultz wrote:
> #90: Collection of CF enhancements for interoperable applications
> ----------------------------+-----------------------------------------
> ----------------------------+------
> Reporter: mgschultz | Owner: cf-conventions at lists.llnl.gov
> Type: enhancement | Status: new
> Priority: medium | Milestone:
> Component: cf-conventions | Version:
> Keywords: |
> ----------------------------+-----------------------------------------
> ----------------------------+------
> Dear all,
>
> in an offline discussion with Jonathan and a few others, it became
> apparent that there may be a few limitations in the current CF convention
> which make life difficult for building true interoperable services. One of
> the major obstacles at present is the optional character of attributes, in
> particular for coordinate axes. If an application cannot rely on finding
> some specific information about a coordinate, it becomes virtualyl
> impossible to interpret this information correctly without human
> intervention (or one has to start guessing which will almost certainly
> fail at some point). According to my understanding, making attributes
> mandatory could break the backward compatibility principle that CF has
> hitherto held very high. Therefore, it appears appropriate to begin a
> collection of issues about the current CF convention which impediment the
> implementation of interoperability, and which would not be backward-
> compatible. Depending on the outcome of this discussion (for which we
> should allow some time), one could decide to either start a new CF major
> version number, or adopt all incompatible changes in one new step release
> version. It should be avoided to introduce incompatible changes in several
> individual releases.
>
> Here I begin with three items. Responses should indicate whether they
> agree that these changes cause incompatibilities. If you want to add other
> issues, please prepend an item number. If discussions on individual issues
> get lengthy, we should open separate track tickets for them and feed the
> conclusion back into this ticket.
>
> 1) make axis attribute and standard_name attribute mandatory for
> coordinate variables
>
> 2) introduce a "group" level in order to be compatbile with the netcdf4
> and hdf data model: each group can have its own coordinate system, but all
> variables within a group must share the same coordinates
>
> 3) standardize use of comments where these are necessary to uniquely
> identify what a standard_name means or what a variable contains. Examples
> are the lumping of NMVOC compounds, where the definition of the lumped
> group should be provided, or the newly proposed emission sectors
>

--
Dr. Heiko Klein                              Tel. + 47 22 96 32 58
Development Section / IT Department          Fax. + 47 22 69 63 55
Norwegian Meteorological Institute           http://www.met.no
P.O. Box 43 Blindern  0313 Oslo NORWAY
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 07:49:24 +0000
From: <alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk>
To: <cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Warming up old stuff - 4 (emissions)
Message-ID:
        <014539AC4976BE4490A360410A8C20174B923F65 at EXCHMBX03.fed.cclrc.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Dear Martin and Jonathan,
Thank you both for your comments. Regarding the provision of additional metadata about the particular processes included within a variable I think we should not change the syntax of the standard name itself for two reasons: (1) We would have to propose a modification to the CF conventions under a trac ticket which would then have to be discussed and agreed - this would delay the introduction of the names into the table (the current conventions say "A standard name contains no whitespace and is case sensitive" with the only exception being for the use of a standard name modifier); (2) I think it would be very difficult to standardize what the additional text should be - this is why I suggested using a comment attribute that allows free text to be included. There is nothing to stop co-workers within a project agreeing a further standardisation of the contents of the comment attribute to further aid data exchange but that need not be part of the CF conventions themselves.
In the definitions of the group chemical names such as "alkanes" we suggest use of the comment attribute to list the species that are included in a particular model. That is why I suggested the same approach for the emissions names. The other alternative would be to include the information using the long_name attribute whose values are also not standardized. Would that be more appropriate? Whichever attribute we choose to use, I think the standard name definition should include some guidance to that effect so that we at least encourage some standardization of which attributes to inspect for the information.
If we can agree on this last point I will prepare definitions for the twelve emissions categories based on Martin's wording and suggesting either comment or long_name as the place to put the additional metadata.
Best wishes,
Alison
------
Alison Pamment                          Tel: +44 1235 778065
NCAS/British Atmospheric Data Centre    Email: alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk
STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
R25, 2.22
Harwell Oxford, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf
> Of Jonathan Gregory
> Sent: 06 July 2012 12:19
> To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Warming up old stuff - 4 (emissions)
>
> Dear Alison
>
> Thank you for your careful and thoughtful commentary on Martin's
> proposal. I agree that we should accept them as they are. It may not
> be the last word, but that is always the case with CF! If we decide
> subsequently that we need a quite different approach, we will have to
> introduce aliases to support these names which we are adding now.
>
> I think it is OK to recommend including further information where
> helpful, but I would not say in the definition that it "should" be
> included.
> That
> appears to mandate a standard use of a non-standardised attribute
> (comment), without proposing how it should be done, as Martin says. I
> would recommend saying something like, "If clarification is useful or
> necessary, it could be given in the comment attribute." In fact this
> may not really be necessary to say, because it's always true that one
> could use the comment attribute, or others such as long_name and
> references, to record extra information.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
--
Scanned by iCritical.
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 07:54:55 +0000
From: <alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk>
To: <cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Warming up old stuff - 4 (emissions)
Message-ID:
        <014539AC4976BE4490A360410A8C20174B923F81 at EXCHMBX03.fed.cclrc.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Dear Philip,
Thank you for your suggestion. I hope that Martin can confirm whether it would be useful to add the sentence about the mass to the definitions. Personally, I think that it would be a useful clarification.
Best wishes,
Alison
------
Alison Pamment                          Tel: +44 1235 778065
NCAS/British Atmospheric Data Centre    Email: alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk
STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
R25, 2.22
Harwell Oxford, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cameron-smith, Philip [mailto:cameronsmith1 at llnl.gov]
> Sent: 06 July 2012 18:12
> To: Pamment, Alison (STFC,RAL,RALSP); m.schultz at fz-juelich.de; cf-
> metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: RE: Re: [CF-metadata] Warming up old stuff - 4 (emissions)
>
> Hi All,
>
> There are endless ways to slice, dice, and combine emission categories.
> In practice, Martin's proposal is about as good as it gets, and
> although there is the theoretical possibility for massive numbers of
> std_names, I think in practice it will be large but manageable.
>
> The most important thing with emissions is to know clearly what is and
> isn't included, and these descriptions are better than others I have
> had to work with.
>
> I therefore support these std_names, with one recommendation:
>
> One common source of confusion for emissions is what the mass refers
> to.   It is common to find emissions quantified by the 'main' element
> rather than the whole molecule (eg emissions of carbon rather than
> carbon dioxide).   To avoid such confusion, I recommend we add a
> sentence to each description saying 'The mass is the total mass of the
> molecules'.
>
> Note that if people want to specify the emissions by an element mass
> only, then we already have a natural way to extend these std_names
> using '_expressed_as_'.
>
> Best wishes,
>
>      Philip
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dr Philip Cameron-Smith, pjc at llnl.gov, Lawrence Livermore National Lab.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf
> > Of alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk
> > Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 3:01 AM
> > To: m.schultz at fz-juelich.de; cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Warming up old stuff - 4 (emissions)
> >
> > Dear Martin, All,
> >
> > Martin Schultz proposed a set of emission names about 12 months ago
> and
> > there has been some sporadic discussion since. I would like to draw
> this
> > discussion to a conclusion so that we are in a position to include
> these
> > quantities, which are clearly of fundamental importance to the
> climate
> > community, in the standard name table.
> >
> > To summarize the situation so far: there has been discussion of the
> syntax of
> > the names and I think that we quite quickly reached a consensus on
> > tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_X_due_to_emission_from_Y
> > (kg m-2 s-1) where X is the chemical species and Y is the emission
> sector. I
> > think also that there is no problem about the chemical species names
> that
> > have been proposed. The remaining question is therefore one of
> describing
> > and defining the emissions sectors and Martin has provided references
> to
> > IPCC documentation describing "source categories". Steven Smith and
> > Gregory Frost supported the proposals for the sectors; Heiko Klein
> suggested
> > that they are too tied to IPCC and that a more general list of
> sectors would be
> > desirable. Martin replied that there is scope for future activity in
> developing
> > an emissions vocabulary, but it seems as though that work that is
> still very
> > much in progress. Martin (off list) has also expressed the view that
> there are
> > currently only two can  didates for describing emissions sectors:
> IPCC and
> > something called 'SNAP'. Apparently the two definitions overlap, but
> are not
> > identical. Martin's proposal follows the recommendations of GEIA (the
> Global
> > emissions inventory activity). There have not been any other comments
> on
> > this set of proposals since 10th March.
> >
> > First a reminder of the proposed emission categories (twelve in all),
> followed
> > by my suggestion for how we should proceed.
> >
> > >
> > tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_X_due_to_emission_from_e
> > nergy_p
> > > roduction_and_distribution
> > > Definition: The 'energy production and distribution' sector refers
> to
> > > the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) source
> categories
> > > 1A1 and 1B as defined in the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national
> > > greenhouse gas inventories. It comprises fuel combustion activities
> > > related to energy industries (1A1) and fugitive emissions from
> fuels
> > > (1B). It may also include any not-classified or "other" combustion,
> > > which is commonly included in energy-related inventory data.
> >
> > >
> > tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_X_due_to_emission_from_in
> > dustri
> > > al_processes_and_combustion
> > > Definition: The 'industrial processes and combustion' sector refers
> to
> > > the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) source
> categories
> > > 1A2, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D and 2E as defined in the 2006 IPCC guidelines
> for
> > > national greenhouse gas inventories. It comprises fuel combustion
> > > activities related to manufacturing industries and construction
> (1A2)
> > > and industrial processes related to the mineral products (2A), the
> > > chemical industry (2B), the metal production (2C), the pulp, paper,
> > > food and drink production (2D), and non-energy use of
> lubricants/waxes
> > > (2G). It may also include any not-classified or "other" combustion,
> > > which is commonly included in industry-related inventory data.
> >
> > >
> > tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_X_due_to_emission_from_re
> > sident
> > > ial_and_commercial_combustion
> > > Definition: The 'residential and commercial combustion' sector
> refers
> > > to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) source
> > > category
> > > 1A4 as defined in the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse
> gas
> > > inventories. It comprises fuel combustion activities related to the
> > > commercial/institutional sector (1A4a), the residential sector
> (1A4b)
> > > and the agriculture/forestry/fishing sector (1A4c). It may also
> > > include any not-classified or "other" combustion, which is commonly
> > > included in the inventory data.
> >
> > >
> > tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_X_due_to_emission_from_so
> > lvent_
> > > production_and_use
> > > Definition: The 'solvent production and use' sector refers to the
> IPCC
> > > (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) source categories 2F
> and 3
> > > as defined in the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas
> > > inventories. It comprises industrial processes related to the
> > > consumption of halocarbons and SF6 (2F) and solvent and other
> product
> > > use (3).
> >
> > >
> > tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_X_due_to_emission_from_ag
> > ricult
> > > ural_production
> > > Definition: The 'agricultural production' sector refers to the IPCC
> > > (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) source categories 4A,
> 4B,
> > > 4C, 4D and 4G as defined in the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national
> > > greenhouse gas inventories. It comprises the agricultural processes
> > > enteric fermentation (4A), manure management (4B), rice cultivation
> > > (4C), agricultural soils (4D) and other (4G). It may also include
> any
> > > not-classified or "other" combustion, which is commonly included in
> > > industry-related inventory data.
> >
> > >
> > tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_X_due_to_emission_from_ag
> > ricult
> > > ural_waste_burning
> > > Definition: The 'agricultural waste burning' sector refers to the
> IPCC
> > > (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) source category 4F as
> > > defined in the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas
> > > inventories. It comprises field burning of agricultural residues
> (4F).
> >
> > >
> > tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_X_due_to_emission_from_w
> > aste_tr
> > > eatment_and_disposal
> > > Definition: The 'waste treatment and disposal' sector refers to the
> > > IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) source category 6
> as
> > > defined in the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas
> > > inventories. It comprises solid waste disposal on land (6A),
> > > wastewater handling (6B), waste incineration (6C) and other (6D).
> >
> > >
> > tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_X_due_to_emission_from_fo
> > rest_f
> > > ires
> > > Definition: The 'forest fires' sector refers to the IPCC
> > > (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) source category 5 as
> > > defined in the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas
> > > inventories. It comprises the burning of living or dead vegetation
> in
> > > forests (natural and human-induced).
> >
> > >
> > tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_X_due_to_emission_from_sa
> > vanna_
> > > and_grassland_fires
> > > Definition: The 'savanna and grassland fires' sector refers to the
> > > IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) source category 5
> as
> > > defined in the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas
> > > inventories. It comprises the burning of living or dead vegetation
> in
> > > non-forested areas (natural and human-induced). It excludes field
> > > burning of agricultural residues (source category 4F).
> >
> > >
> > tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_X_due_to_emission_from_la
> > nd_tra
> > > nsport
> > > Definition: The 'land transport' sector refers to the IPCC
> > > (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) source categories 1A3b,
> > > 1A3c and 1A3e as defined in the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national
> > > greenhouse gas inventories. It includes fuel combustion activities
> > > related to road transportation (1A3B), railways (1A3c) and other
> > > transportation (1A3e).
> >
> > >
> > tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_X_due_to_emission_from_m
> > aritime
> > > _transport
> > > Definition: The 'maritime transport' sector refers to the IPCC
> > > (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) source category 1A3d as
> > > defined in the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas
> > > inventories. It includes fuel combustion activities related to
> > > maritime transport (1A3d).
> >
> > >
> > tendency_of_mass_concentration_of_X_in_air_due_to_emission_from_avi
> > ati
> > > on
> > > Definition: The 'aviation' sector refers to the IPCC
> > > (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) source category 1A3a as
> > > defined in the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas
> > > inventories. It includes fuel combustion activities related to
> civil
> > > aviation (1A3a).
> >
> > Clearly each proposed name involves a grouping together of a 'basket'
> of
> > processes and doubtless different combinations could be chosen than
> those
> > arrived at by the IPCC. For example, one could imagine a dataset that
> > combined 'land_transport' and 'maritime_transport' into a
> > 'surface_transport' category. Equally, one could imagine a dataset
> that
> > subdivided the emissions into more categories than the IPCC process,
> e.g.,
> > 'extraction_and_distribution_of_natural_gas',
> > 'extraction_and_refinement_of_crude_oil', and so on. The current
> proposals
> > would certainly not prevent us from introducing such names for
> broader or
> > narrower categories if they were required in the future. Equally they
> would
> > not prevent us from introducing names for categories that overlap two
> or
> > more of the current proposals, e.g.,
> > 'commercial_and_industrial_combustion'. In all these cases we would
> be
> > able to construct meaningful standard names that would allow data
> users to
> > answer the question of whether two quanti  ties are comparable (the
> central
> > purpose of standard names). Furthermore, it seems unlikely, based on
> the
> > discussion so far in this thread, that we could design a set of
> standard names
> > now that will definitively describe all possible categories and
> combinations of
> > emissions that will be needed for datasets in the future. Therefore I
> think
> > that we should accept Martin's proposals while recognizing that we
> will
> > almost certainly need to introduce new standard names for emissions
> as new
> > datasets become available.
> >
> > I wonder, however, whether we could generalize the definitions a
> little so
> > that the proposed names could be used for variables containing both
> IPCC-
> > like and other data that fall into broadly the same categories. I
> think we could
> > achieve this by using the wording that Martin has provided and
> > recommending that additional metadata be provided as to exactly which
> > processes are included in a particular dataset (in the same way that
> we ask
> > for extra detail when using group chemical names such as 'alkanes').
> For
> > example, Martin proposes
> >
> > >
> > tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_X_due_to_emission_from_e
> > nergy_p
> > > roduction_and_distribution
> > > Definition: The 'energy production and distribution' sector refers
> to
> > > the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) source
> categories
> > > 1A1 and 1B as defined in the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national
> > > greenhouse gas inventories. It comprises fuel combustion activities
> > > related to energy industries (1A1) and fugitive emissions from
> fuels
> > > (1B). It may also include any not-classified or "other" combustion,
> > > which is commonly included in energy-related inventory data.
> >
> > Perhaps we could adjust this to: 'The "energy production and
> distribution"
> > sector comprises fuel combustion activities related to energy
> industries and
> > fugitive emissions from fuels. It may also include any not-classified
> or "other"
> > combustion, which is commonly included in energy-related inventory
> data.
> > "Energy production and distribution" is the term used in standard
> names to
> > describe a collection of emission sources. Where possible, the data
> variable
> > should be accompanied by a complete description of the individual
> sources
> > that are included, for example, by using a comment attribute. The
> comment
> > attribute could be a list of sources or a reference such as "IPCC
> > (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) source categories
> > 1A1 and 1B as defined in the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national
> greenhouse
> > gas inventories".'
> >
> > Would this be an acceptable way forward? If anyone thinks we should
> take a
> > much different approach to dealing with the emissions standard names,
> > please can I ask for specific suggestions rather than general
> comments as we
> > do need to make progress on finalising these quantities.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Alison
> >
> > ------
> > Alison Pamment                          Tel: +44 1235 778065
> > NCAS/British Atmospheric Data Centre    Email:
> alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk
> > STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> > R25, 2.22
> > Harwell Oxford, 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.
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
------------------------------
End of CF-metadata Digest, Vol 111, Issue 8
*******************************************
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 unseren neuen Film? http://www.fz-juelich.de/film
Kennen Sie schon unsere app? http://www.fz-juelich.de/app

Received on Mon Jul 09 2012 - 06:08:24 BST