Hi All,
Is there, or should there be, a distinction between downward motion of particles relative to the water, compared to downward motion relative to a fixed reference frame? (the difference being whether the water motion is included)
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
> John Graybeal
> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 2:51 PM
> To: CF Metadata List
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] standard names for sediment trap data
>
> I'm likewise happy with either. I was shortly going to request names for
>
> downward_mass_flux_of_particulate_matter_in_sea_water
> downward_mass_flux_of_particulate_carbon_in_sea_water
> downward_mass_flux_of_particulate_nitrogen_in_sea_water
> downward_mass_flux_of_particulate_phosphorus_in_sea_water
>
> which are pretty much the same things as Matthias is proposing, aside from the
> downward/sinking distinction.
>
> I looked for downward_ and sinking_ fluxes, and found
> 3 downward_mass_flux (but no sinking_mass_flux)
> 7 sinking_mole_flux (but no downward_mole_flux)
> It's a little goofy, but one could use downward for masses and sinking for
> moles....
>
> john
>
>
>
> On Oct 10, 2013, at 14:40, Matthias Lankhorst <mlankhorst at ucsd.edu> wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > John is making a good point: there are multiple CF standard_names
> > already that go like "downward_..._flux_...", in contrast to the
> "sinking_..._flux_..."
> > ones that I found.
> >
> > Should we eliminate one?
> >
> > I have no preference and ask everybody who does to chime in.
> >
> > I can see the benefits of having just one of the two wordings, but do
> > not really care which one.
> >
> > Matthias
> >
> >
> >> Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 17:17:21 -0700
> >> From: John Graybeal <john.graybeal at marinexplore.com>
> >> To: CF Metadata List <cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>, OceanSITES Data
> >> Management Team <oceansites-dmt at jcommops.org>
> >> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] standard names for sediment trap data
> >> Message-ID: <13CC17BA-92E2-4181-BEAE-
> DF80080F3297 at marinexplore.com>
> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >>
> >> Hi Matthias! I support the direction of this request.
> >>
> >> I note the resemblance to the 'downward_mass_flux_...' standard names
> >> recently requested, and I have assumed that phrase is a common CF way
> >> of saying the same thing. (Oddly, I missed the sinking_ ones when
> >> formulating my request.)
> >>
> >> Perhaps we should see if one or the other is more dominant and move
> >> toward a single phrasing?
> >>
> >> With regard to units, I think the list would say 'request what you
> >> use and need'. Some people will measure mole_flux, some will measure
> mass_flux.
> >> (No?)
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >> On Oct 9, 2013, at 16:16, Matthias Lankhorst <mlankhorst at ucsd.edu> wrote:
> >>> Dear CF community,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> in the OceanSITES project, we would like to publish data from
> >>> sediment traps in files, using the CF conventions. Sediment traps
> >>> are devices moored underwater in the ocean, which collect sinking
> >>> particles
> >>> (detritus) in a funnel and into sample bottles for later analyses.
> >>> Analyses can be done for a variety of substances. It looks like we
> >>> need a few more standard names for these, and possibly a discussion
> >>> whether some of them should be expressed as mass fluxes or as
> >>> substance amount
> >>> (mole) fluxes.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I noticed that CF already has these standard names, all as mole
> >>> fluxes with
> >>>
> >>> canonical units of mol m-2 s-1:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> sinking_mole_flux_of_aragonite_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water
> >>> sinking_mole_flux_of_calcite_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water
> >>> sinking_mole_flux_of_particulate_iron_in_sea_water
> >>> sinking_mole_flux_of_particulate_organic_matter_expressed_as_carbon_
> >>> in_se a_water
> >>> sinking_mole_flux_of_particulate_organic_nitrogen_in_sea_water
> >>> sinking_mole_flux_of_particulate_organic_phosphorus_in_sea_water
> >>> sinking_mole_flux_of_particulate_silicon_in_sea_water
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Here is the list of quantities that we need to address in
> >>> OceanSITES. My initial proposal is to introduce them all as mass
> >>> fluxes with canonical units of kg m-2 s-1. If we should rather go
> >>> with mole fluxes like the ones above, please chime in.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Total/organic mass:
> >>> Propose new standard names:
> >>> sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_matter_in_sea_water
> >>> sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_organic_matter_in_sea_water
> >>> (I suppose these are understood as dry mass, i.e. weighed after
> >>> water has evaporated.)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Particulate organic, inorganic, total carbon:
> >>> Propose new standard names:
> >>> sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_organic_carbon_in_sea_water
> >>> sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_inorganic_carbon_in_sea_water
> >>> sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_carbon_in_sea_water
> >>> (or should we include "total" somewhere in the latter?)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Particulate organic, inorganic, total nitrogen:
> >>> Propose new standard names:
> >>> sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_organic_nitrogen_in_sea_water
> >>> sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_inorganic_nitrogen_in_sea_water
> >>> sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_nitrogen_in_sea_water
> >>> (or should we include "total" somewhere in the latter?)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Other particulate substances from a list:
> >>> Propose new standard names for each of the following, to be
> >>> constructed
> >>> as: sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_XXX_in_sea_water,
> >>> where XXX is:
> >>> - aluminum
> >>> - iron
> >>> - phosphorous
> >>> - silica
> >>> - biogenic_silica
> >>> - lithogenic_silica
> >>> - calcium
> >>> - titanium
> >>> - manganese
> >>> - barium
> >>> - magnesium
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Your expert comments are highly appreciated!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Respectfully, Matthias
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> _______________________________________
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Dr. Matthias Lankhorst
> >>> Scripps Institution of Oceanography
> >>> 9500 Gilman Drive, Mail Code 0230
> >>> La Jolla, CA 92093-0230
> >>> USA
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Phone: +1 858 822 5013
> >>> Fax: +1 858 534 9820
> >>> E-Mail: mlankhorst at ucsd.edu
> >>> http://www-pord.ucsd.edu/~mlankhorst/
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> CF-metadata mailing list
> >>> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> >>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------
> >> John Graybeal
> >> Senior Data Manager, Metadata and Semantics
> >>
> >> T +1 (408) 675-5545
> >> F +1 (408) 616-1626
> >> skype: graybealski
> >>
> >> Marinexplore
> >> 920 Stewart Drive
> >> Sunnyvale, CA
> >
> > --
> > _______________________________________
> >
> > Dr. Matthias Lankhorst
> > Scripps Institution of Oceanography
> > 9500 Gilman Drive, Mail Code 0230
> > La Jolla, CA 92093-0230
> > USA
> >
> > Phone: +1 858 822 5013
> > Fax: +1 858 534 9820
> > E-Mail: mlankhorst at ucsd.edu
> > http://www-pord.ucsd.edu/~mlankhorst/
> > _______________________________________________
> > CF-metadata mailing list
> > CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
> >
>
>
> ---------------
> John Graybeal
> Marine Metadata Interoperability Project: http://marinemetadata.org
> graybeal at marinemetadata.org
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Received on Thu Oct 10 2013 - 19:06:16 BST
