Dear Martin
If I have understood it correctly, I think it is fine - just wanting to make
sure. Thanks.
Best wishes
Jonathan
----- Forwarded message from "Schultz, Martin" <m.schultz at fz-juelich.de> -----
> From: "Schultz, Martin" <m.schultz at fz-juelich.de>
> To: "cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu" <cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 07:25:57 +0000
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Proposal for new standard_names for biomass
> burning
>
> Dear Jonathan, Philip,
>
> good point! In practice, I think that "expressed_as" means something more general than "contained in" so that the "NOx_expressed_as_NO2" case is a perfectly valid one. Indeed, that would be the standard_name that would be used if "official" inventories were to adopt CF for their data (the US EPA uses "short tons of NO2", for example). As Philip says, in our research context we usually deal with "expressed_as_NO". Hence, I would advocate to leave things as they are now and rework the definition only when needed.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Martin
>
> >Message: 5
> >Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2013 14:16:26 +0000
> >From: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>
> >To: "Cameron-smith, Philip" <cameronsmith1 at llnl.gov>
> >Cc: "cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu" <cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> >Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Proposal for new standard_names for biomass
> > burning emissions
> >Message-ID: <20130105141626.GA16468 at met.reading.ac.uk>
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> >Dear Philip
>
> >> Jonathan: we already have std_names without a fixed ratio, although it isn't explicit in the descriptions (eg, >>atmosphere_mass_content_of_anthropogenic_nmvoc_expressed_as_carbon). Indeed, this is one of the main
> >>reasons people use the 'expressed_as' concept.
> >>
> >> I did note the tiniest inconsistency for the future. As proposed, NOx_expressed_as_NO is consistent with the
> >>current description "The phrase 'expressed_as' is used in the construction A_expressed_as_B, where B is a
> >>chemical constituent of A. It means that the quantity indicated by the standard name is calculated solely
> >>with respect to the B contained in A, neglecting all other chemical constituents of A."
> >>
> >> However, in the future someone may want NOx_expressed_as_NO2, and NO2 is not entirely contained in
> >>NOx. To put it another way, the mass of the emission expressed as NO2 is larger than the mass of the actual
> >>NOx emission.
> >
> >I think your point is similar to what I was trying to say, but it might be that I don't understand this properly.
> >I think nmvoc_expressed_as_carbon is fine. It just means we count up the C, never mind what compounds
> >actually contain the C. I assume that nox_expressed_as_no means that we pretend all the N in the NOx is
> >actually present as NO. Is that right? If so, I think it is well- defined, but it's a bit different from previous
> >situations, where B is truly contained in A. C is truly contained in nmvoc.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
----- End forwarded message -----
Received on Tue Jan 08 2013 - 02:48:48 GMT
