Hi all -
In the interest of getting a reply to Ajay, are we going to recommend
the new
standard name
difference_of_oxygen_per_unit_mass_in_sea_water_from_saturation,
as suggested by Jonathan? I suppose we can recommend that the BGC folks use
their domain's preferred term, Apparent Oxygen Utilization, as a long name.
I'll just make one last-ditch effort, by quoting Roy's email of 1/20/15,
then I'll
stop being disagreeable:
> Wally Broecker's work is so well absorbed into biogeochemistry that we should respect his terminology.
Cheers -
Nan
On 1/26/15 12:35 PM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> Dear Nan
>
> Yes, there are standard_names which are not self-explanatory, I agree. But I
> think that in the standard_name table the advantage of being self-explanatory
> outweighs the disadvantage of being longer and less familiar. The standard_name
> table has a particular purpose of helping to describe quantities so that people
> with different sources of data can work out if their quantities are "the same
> thing" for the purpose of intercomparison. That's why we may use different and
> more explicit terms from the ones that experts in various domains use among
> themselves.
>
> Yours equally respectfully
>
> Jonathan
>
> ----- Forwarded message from Nan Galbraith<ngalbraith at whoi.edu> -----
>
>> Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 09:20:54 -0500
>> From: Nan Galbraith<ngalbraith at whoi.edu>
>> To:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Fwd: Re: Request for new standard-name:
>> apparent_oxygen_utilization
>>
>>
>> The terms that have been suggested (like
>> difference_of_oxygen_per_unit_mass_
>> in_sea_water_from_saturation) are more descriptive of the method of
>> measurement
>> and calculation than of the concept being described, apparent oxygen
>> utilization,
>> so I have to respectfully disagree.
>>
>> I think there are precedents for allowing a concept like 'apparent
>> oxygen utilization'
>> to be used as a standard name, in preference to describing measurement and
>> calculation methods in these terms.
>>
>> Some examples are richardson_number_in_sea_water,
>> atmosphere_dry_energy_content,
>> atmosphere_convective_inhibition_wrt_surface - these all describe
>> the calculations in
>> their definitions, not in the names themselves.
>>
>> Regards -
>> Nan
>>
>>
>> On 1/21/15 1:46 PM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
>>> Dear Nan
>>>
>>> Sorry to be awkward, but it doesn't change my opinion. CF standard names are
>>> often not the terms which are customarily used in the expert communities
>>> themselves. They're not really names, but explanations, in many cases. This
>>> is in no way to underrate the expertise of the people concerned, but to make
>>> things clear. For example, in atmospheric science, there is a quantity which
>>> most people would recognise by the name of omega. But that's not at all self-
>>> explanatory and the same letter is used in other fields for different things,
>>> so its standard name is lagrangian_tendency_of_air_pressure, which answers
>>> the question, "What is omega?", rather than being the customary jargon term.
>>>
>>> Best wishes
>>>
>>> Jonathan
>>>
>>> ----- Forwarded message from Nan Galbraith<ngalbraith at whoi.edu> -----
>>>
>>>> Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:35:36 -0500
>>>> From: Nan Galbraith<ngalbraith at whoi.edu>
>>>> To:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>>>> Subject: [CF-metadata] Fwd: Re: Request for new standard-name:
>>>> apparent_oxygen_utilization
>>>>
>>>> Hi all -
>>>>
>>>> I received this follow-up from Ajay, and thought it would be OK
>>>> to share it with the list. I wasn't aware of it, but 'apparent oxygen
>>>> utilization' seems to be a well-defined term in oceanography.
>>>>
>>>> Not sure if this changes others' opinions, but it does change mine.
>>>>
>>>> Regards -
>>>> Nan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Request for new standard-name:
>>>> apparent_oxygen_utilization
>>>> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 15:24:25 -0500
>>>> From: Ajay Krishnan - NOAA Affiliate<ajay.krishnan at noaa.gov>
>>>> To: Nan Galbraith<ngalbraith at whoi.edu>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Nan,
>>>>
>>>> I posed your question to the Science team that requested the
>>>> standard name and this was their response:
>>>>
>>>> Maybe it is better to stick to a citable reference. No additional
>>>> description of what AOU is necessary, in my opinion. But if one is
>>>> needed, I can slightly modify Tim's version
>>>>
>>>> AOU, Apparent Oxygen Utilization, is defined as the difference
>>>> between the saturation oxygen concentration at 1 atmosphere and the
>>>> observed oxygen concentration (Broecker and Peng, 1982)
>>>>
>>>> Broecker, W. S. and T. H. Peng (1982), Tracers in the Sea,
>>>> Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Palisades, N. Y.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 13:21:57 -0500 (EST)
>>>> From: Tim Boyer <tim.boyer at noaa.gov <mailto:tim.boyer at noaa.gov>>
>>>> To: Ajay Krishnan - NOAA Affiliate <ajay.krishnan at noaa.gov
>>>> <mailto:ajay.krishnan at noaa.gov>>
>>>> Subject: Re: Fwd: [CF-metadata] Request for new standard-name:
>>>> apparent_oxygen_utilization
>>>>
>>>> Ajay,
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> AOU is a standard calculation made by oceanographers to
>>>> estimate non-physical usage of oxygen - non-physical
>>>> meaning biological uptake/release and chemical reaction.
>>>> Physically, it is assumed that oxygen will be saturated
>>>> at the surface with respects to the atmosphere through physical
>>>> processes and therefore only non-physical processes can alter oxygen
>>>> content from saturation state. If Nan (or Hernan) would like to
>>>> suggest a change or addition to the definition, thats
>>>> fine.
>>>>
>>>> As for whether AOU should be defined somewhere else,
>>>> cell method or standard name modifier - that is something
>>>> for you CF experts to decide. Please ask Nan to propose
>>>> such a definition.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Tim
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Nan Galbraith <ngalbraith at whoi.edu
>>>> <mailto:ngalbraith at whoi.edu>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi, Ajay -
>>>>
>>>> This looks, at first glance, like a too-specific term; the
>>>> definition doesn't
>>>> carry as much information as the proposed standard name itself. What I
>>>> mean, specifically is, aren't there times when the difference
>>>> between saturation
>>>> oxygen and observed oxygen are NOT a measure of oxygen utilization?
>>>>
>>>> And, isn't there an existing method to describe a value that
>>>> represents a
>>>> difference such as this? Standard name modifier, or cell method,
>>>> I'm not
>>>> sure which ... sorry I can't look more closely at this right now!
>>>>
>>>> Regards - Nan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/14/15 11:54 AM, Ajay Krishnan - NOAA Affiliate wrote:
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> I had requested for a new standard name for
>>>>> apparent_oxygen_utilization during the last week of November.
>>>>> Since, there have been no discussions on it, I wanted to quickly
>>>>> follow up on it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Ajay
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Ajay Krishnan - NOAA Affiliate
>>>>> <ajay.krishnan at noaa.gov <mailto:ajay.krishnan at noaa.gov>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear CF community,
>>>>>
>>>>> On behalf of NODC, I would like to request for a new standard
>>>>> name:
>>>>>
>>>>> apparent_oxygen_utiliziation (AOU)
>>>>> definition: the difference between saturation oxygen content
>>>>> and observed oxygen content.
>>>>> units: micromoles/kg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Description is from Broecker and Peng, 1982, Tracers in
>>>>> the Sea
>>>>> http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~broecker/Home_files/TracersInTheSea_searchable.pdf
>>>>> <http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/%7Ebroecker/Home_files/TracersInTheSea_searchable.pdf>
>>>>> (pp 131-138)
>>>>>
>>>>> Some more detail in Garcia et al., World Ocean Atlas
>>>>> Volume 3: Dissolved Oxygen, Apparent Oxygen Utilization, and
>>>>> Oxygen Saturation.
>>>>> http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/WOA13/DOC/woa13_vol3.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Ajay
>>>>>
--
*******************************************************
* Nan Galbraith Information Systems Specialist *
* Upper Ocean Processes Group Mail Stop 29 *
* Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution *
* Woods Hole, MA 02543 (508) 289-2444 *
*******************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20150202/0d2b4073/attachment.html>
Received on Mon Feb 02 2015 - 08:02:52 GMT
