Dear Alison,
I think I and then Olivier tried to define names for optical quantities along the same suite of European projects, and this several times since for some reasons they were not included in the standard table. It would be nice to conclude on this issue.
volume_absorption_coefficient_of_radiative_flux_in_sea_water_due_to_phytoplankton
I agree that this is fine.
volume_backwards_scattering_coefficient_of_radiative_flux_in_sea_water_due_to_particles
agree with the point on particles. So the name is still fine for me.
For the rest, I'd recommend:
volume_absorption_coefficient_of_radiative_flux_in_sea_water_due_to_dissolved_organic_matter_and_non_pigmented_particles;
volume_absorption_coefficient_of_radiative_flux_in_sea_water_due_to_dissolved_organic_matter; (if not defined already)
volume_absorption_coefficient_of_radiative_flux_in_sea_water_due_to_non_pigmented_particles;
The first one is the sum of the other 2, and is a standard satellite product (the other 2 terms are not easily distinguishable from space).
I'd favor 'pigmented' rather than 'non_algal'. They are in practice synonymous but the reference to pigments is closer to actual laboratory measurements where bleaching is used before measuring this contribution of the total particulate absorption.
OK for the point on the wavelength.
I agree with all of Roy's comments. 'biogenic' is from biological origin; so I would assume that this is synonymous with 'organic' WHEN speaking of particles.
I hope this helps,
Best,
Fr?d?ric
-----Original Message-----
From: alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk [mailto:alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 1:26 PM
To: mggr at pml.ac.uk; OLauret at cls.fr; frederic.melin at jrc.ec.europa.eu; cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
Cc: victoria.bennett at stfc.ac.uk
Subject: Ocean colour standard names
Dear Mike, Olivier, Frederic, All,
I've been doing some detective work in response to an enquiry from Mike Grant of Plymouth Marine Laboratory regarding some ocean colour standard names that were causing the CF checker to fail because they are not present in the standard name table. Apologies for the length of this email, but the picture regarding these names is rather complicated. I would appreciate some help in sorting them out.
The names causing the checker to fail are:
> ERROR (3.3): Invalid standard_name:
>
> volume_absorption_coefficient_of_radiative_flux_in_sea_water_due_to_ph
> ytoplankton
>
> ERROR (3.3): Invalid standard_name:
>
> volume_backwards_scattering_coefficient_of_radiative_flux_in_sea_water
> _due_to_particles
Mike has pointed out that these names were proposed in 2009/10. In fact, they seem to have been proposed twice, first by Frederic Melin and again by Olivier Lauret along with a few other names, but they were never properly agreed which I think is the reason they never made it into the standard name table. Clearly, however, there is a need to revisit the discussions.
Olivier proposed the following names in December 2010:
number_content_of_icebergs (m-2)
mass_concentration_of_inorganic_particles_in_sea_water (kg m-3) volume_absorption_coefficient_of_radiative_flux_in_sea_water_due_to_dissolved_organic_matter_and_non_algal_particles (m-1) volume_absorption_coefficient_of_radiative_flux_in_sea_water_due_to_phytoplankton (m-1) volume_backwards_scattering_coefficient_of_radiative_flux_in_sea_water_due_to_particles (m-1)
Of these, the first name was discussed, eventually accepted in the form of number_of_icebergs_per_unit_area and added to the standard name table. The other four proposals do not seem to have received any comment at that time.
Earlier, in September 2009 (
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/2009/053225.html) Frederic had proposed:
volume_absorption_coefficient_of_radiative_flux_in_sea_water_due_to_dissolved_organic_matter_and_non_algal_particles
volume_absorption_coefficient_of_radiative_flux_in_sea_water_due_to_phytoplankton
volume_backwards_scattering_coefficient_of_radiative_flux_in_sea_water_due_to_particles
volume_absorption_coefficient_of_radiative_flux_in_sea_water_due_to_non_algal_particles
the first three of which are also in Olivier's list.
The only discussion centred on whether the coefficients were spectral quantities (per_unit_wavelength) or whether they simply needed a coordinate variable of radiation_wavelength specifying to which wavelength they apply. I think the latter was decided.
In June 2010 Frederic re-proposed the names:
volume_absorption_coefficient_of_radiative_flux_in_sea_water_due_to_dissolved_organic_matter_and_non_pigmented_particles;
volume_absorption_coefficient_of_radiative_flux_in_sea_water_due_to_phytoplankton;
volume_backwards_scattering_coefficient_of_radiative_flux_in_sea_water_due_to_particles;
volume_absorption_coefficient_of_radiative_flux_in_sea_water_due_to_non_pigmented_particles;
in which it appears that 'non_algal_particles' had been replaced by 'non_pigmented_particles', but again there don't seem to have been any comments.
I'm not sure why one set of proposals refers to 'non_algal' and the other refers to 'non-pigmented' and no definitions ever seem to have been supplied for either. Perhaps Mike, Frederic or Olivier can help with this? Also are these particles organic or inorganic or perhaps both?
The two names that Mike is currently trying to use are volume_absorption_coefficient_of_radiative_flux_in_sea_water_due_to_phytoplankton and volume_backwards_scattering_coefficient_of_radiative_flux_in_sea_water_due_to_particles, which actually look OK to me.
We have existing phytoplankton names with the definition: 'Phytoplankton are autotrophic prokaryotic or eukaryotic algae that live near the water surface where there is sufficient light to support photosynthesis.' I think the phytoplankton name can be accepted and added at the next update of the standard name table.
I would assume that 'particles' refers to all particles, whether organic/inorganic, algal/non-algal, pigmented/non-pigmented. If Mike, Frederic or Olivier could confirm my assumption then I think volume_backwards_scattering_coefficient_of_radiative_flux_in_sea_water_due_to_particles could also be accepted and added to the table.
The other names look reasonable, but we do need to be clear about the definitions before they can be accepted (and also whether they are 'non_algal' or 'non_pigmented').
I should also mention that in the new year I would like to review the way we refer to particles in sea_water as we seem to have a varied terminology: particulate_organic_matter, organic_detritus and particulate_biogenic_matter all seem to be in current use. I'd like to establish whether we need all these or whether we can standardise the names further, particularly as the question is relevant to a current set of proposals from John Graybeal.
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.
Received on Fri Dec 20 2013 - 04:50:37 GMT
