Dear Alison,
many thanks for your efforts and the thorough review of the definitions. Below I copy and answer only to the points that need attention.
1. general remark concerning the suggested definition text:
> suggested explanation for 'mass'. For example, the full definition
> for the first proposed name,
> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_carbon_monoxide_due_to_emission
> _ from_energy_production_and_distribution, would read:
>
> ' "tendency_of_X" means derivative of X with respect to time. [...]
> '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.** If clarification of the emission
> sources is useful or necessary, it could be given in the 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". **'
I would advocate a somewhat more rigid formulation here. According to Jonathan, CF uses either "shall" or "should", and in my understanding "could" is even weaker. In fact, I would argue that clarification of the sectors is always useful (and probably almost always necessary). Hence, I suggest to change the part between "**" and "**" to:
'A variable containing this standard_name attribute should be accompanied by a comment attribute which lists the source categories and provides a reference to the categorization scheme. Example: "IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) source categories 1A1 and 1B as defined in the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories".'
2. industrial_processes_and_combustion:
> [...] a reference such as "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". '
>
> **Does the suggested text for the comment attribute contain the
> correct list of categories? The original definition provided by Martin
> refers to "1A2, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D and 2E" in the first sentence but later
> refers to "non-energy use of lubricants/waxes (2G)" which isn't in the
> first list. Is this just a typo?
Your text is correct. There may be a place for some "2G" emissions in this category, but since we should advocate the use of a comment attribute to define the actual sector list, limiting the standard name definition to "1A2, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D and 2E" is fine.
3. ** The definitions of both "forest_fires" and "savanna_and_grassland_fires" refer to IPCC source category 5; is that correct?
Yes. Category 5 is for "other". The 2006 guidelines state "Only use this category exceptionally, for any categories than cannot be accommodated in the categories described above. Include a reference to where a detailed explanation of the category can be found." Neither forest nor savanna fires fall under the reporting obligations.
4. ** I assume that the phrase in parenthesis "(natural and human induced)" refers to the fires, not the land use type; is that correct?
Yes. This is correct.
5. ** Do we need any additional qualifying text about "alcohols" being a
> group chemical name, e.g., 'In standard names "alcohols" is the term
> used to describe the group of chemical species that are represented
> within a given model. The list of individual species that are included
> in a quantity having a group chemical standard name can vary between
> models. Where possible, the data variable should be accompanied by a
> complete description of the species represented, for example, by using
> a comment attribute.' ?
As this is common practice elsewhere, I agree. This implies that we would like to see two things described in the comments attribute: the emission source categories and the species which make up for the compound group. In order to not delay the process any further, I suggest to take this route for now, but perhaps we should open a new discussion (track ticket) then on adding more specific attributes for chemistry variables. If Philip follows this, he may wish to comment?
An initial suggestion could be:
source_categories:"1A1, 1B"
source_category_reference:"IPCC Emission guidelines 2006;
http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html"
group_compounds:"CH3OH, C2H5OH, ..."
Of course, the application of these would be limited to emission variables and chemical compound groups, respectively.
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
Received on Thu Aug 09 2012 - 07:04:41 BST
