Hi Alison,
I had to defer this to to our subject matter expert, Hernan Garcia. His
response is copied below. I am also including Hernan in this email now,
just so that we're all on the same page, moving forward.
Apparent Oxygen Utilization (AOU) is defined as the difference between the
solubility concentration of oxygen in equilibrium with the atmosphere at
the temperature and salinity of a parcel of water and the observed
dissolved oxygen concentration. It is used to estimate the change in
dissolved oxygen in a parcel of water due to biological and chemical
processes at depth since it left the surface. AOU and dissolved oxygen
concentrations are nominally expressed in micro-moles per kilogram (umol
kg^-1)
Thanks,
Ajay
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:47 AM, Lowry, Roy K. <rkl at bodc.ac.uk> wrote:
> Hello Alison,
>
> Looks good to me.
>
> Cheers, Roy.
> ________________________________________
> From: alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk [alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk]
> Sent: 26 February 2015 18:11
> To: Lowry, Roy K.; ajay.krishnan at noaa.gov; cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: RE: [CF-metadata] Request for new standard-name:
> apparent_oxygen_utilization
>
> Dear Ajay, Roy, All,
>
> Thank you for the clarification regarding units.
>
> We are now settled on
> apparent_oxygen_utilization (mol kg-1).
>
> We do already have a couple of ocean biogeochemistry names referring to
> ?nitrate utilization? so I think this new name is in keeping with those.
>
> Based on the definition provided by Ajay and John Graybeal?s suggested
> wording, I have currently written the definition as:
> ?Apparent Oxygen Utilization (often abbreviated as AOU) is the difference
> between the saturation concentration of oxygen in sea water at a pressure
> of 1 atmosphere (101325 Pa) and the observed oxygen concentration. It is
> used to estimate the change in oxygen concentration due to biological and
> chemical processes. Reference: Broecker, W. S. and T. H. Peng (1982),
> Tracers in the Sea, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Palisades, N. Y.? I
> have deliberately included ?in sea water? in the first sentence of the
> definition to make it clear that this is an oceanographic quantity.
>
> Does this all look OK? If so, then I think the name can be accepted for
> inclusion in the standard name table.
>
> Best wishes,
> Alison
>
> ------
> Alison Pamment Tel: +44 1235 778065
> NCAS/Centre for Environmental Data Archival Email:
> alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk<mailto:J.A.Pamment at rl.ac.uk>
> STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> R25, 2.22
> Harwell Oxford, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
>
>
> From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of
> Lowry, Roy K.
> Sent: 26 February 2015 15:29
> To: Ajay Krishnan - NOAA Affiliate; cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Request for new standard-name:
> apparent_oxygen_utilization
>
> Hi Alison,
>
> Just to clarify that I am in total agreement with this and had a bit of a
> senior moment in a previous message.
>
> Cheers, Roy.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ajay Krishnan - NOAA Affiliate [ajay.krishnan at noaa.gov]
> Sent: 26 February 2015 14:56
> To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Request for new standard-name:
> apparent_oxygen_utilization
>
> Hi Alison,
>
> Yes, please use mol kg-1 as the canonical unit.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ajay
>
> alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk<http://stfc.ac.uk> alison.pamment at
> stfc.ac.uk <mailto:cf-metadata%40cgd.ucar.edu
> ?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BCF-metadata%5D%20Request%20for%20new%0A%09standard-name%3A%09apparent_oxygen_utilization&In-Reply-To=%3C014539AC4976BE4490A360410A8C20178A2D6062%
> 40EXCHMBX01.fed.cclrc.ac.uk%3E>
> Thu Feb 26 03:56:32 MST 2015
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Thank you for the constructive discussion of this proposal - it seems that
> agreement has been reached on apparent_oxygen_utilisation with canonical
> units of mol kg-1. (Just to double check: is this the correct unit for use
> with the World Ocean Database, which I believe is the reason for requesting
> the name in the first place. Units of mol m-3 have also been mentioned in
> this discussion, but this could be a misunderstanding.
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Alison
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is
> subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this
> email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt
> from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in
> an electronic records management system.
>
> This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is
> subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this
> email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt
> from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in
> an electronic records management system.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20150227/f1e8b98d/attachment-0001.html>
Received on Fri Feb 27 2015 - 09:32:14 GMT
