Dear Martin, All,
thank you for responding to my questions. Regarding the comment variable, the text you are suggesting is somewhat stronger than the advice that is normally given in standard names definitions, but if as you say there is always a need to add clarification of the sectors for these names then I think your proposed text is acceptable. I will amend the definitions accordingly.
I agree with your suggestion that any further discussion of standardizing chemistry attributes should go into a trac ticket rather than a standard names thread on the mailing list.
As all the outstanding points in this discussion have now been resolved I am accepting all the emissions names for inclusion in the next version of the standard name table. I will be on annual leave over the next two weeks, however I plan to make the next update of the standard name table on 30th August. For a full list of the emissions names that will be added please see
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/2012/049724.html.
Best wishes,
Alison
________________________________________
From: CF-metadata [cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] on behalf of Schultz, Martin [m.schultz at fz-juelich.de]
Sent: 09 August 2012 14:04
To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] emission names?
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
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
--
Scanned by iCritical.
Received on Mon Aug 13 2012 - 08:13:16 BST
