Hi Ajay,
To me, this doesn't differ significantly from Alison's words except it uses 'parcel of water' rather than 'sea water' and 'in equilibrium with the atmosphere' rather than 'saturation at a pressure of one atmosphere'. My only problem is that CF definitions don't usually include units. Like Nan, I also like the inclusion of the reference in Alison's definition.
Would everybody be happy with:
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. 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.
We need to agree something. At the moment we seem to be doing everything possible to prevent this Standard Name being accepted!!!
Cheers, Roy.
________________________________________
From: Ajay Krishnan - NOAA Affiliate [ajay.krishnan at noaa.gov]
Sent: 27 February 2015 16:32
To: Lowry, Roy K.; Hernan Garcia - NOAA Federal
Cc: alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk; cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Request for new standard-name: apparent_oxygen_utilization
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<mailto:rkl at bodc.ac.uk>> wrote:
Hello Alison,
Looks good to me.
Cheers, Roy.
________________________________________
From: alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk<mailto:alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk> [alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk<mailto:alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk>]
Sent: 26 February 2015 18:11
To: Lowry, Roy K.; ajay.krishnan at noaa.gov<mailto:ajay.krishnan at noaa.gov>; 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
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<tel:%2B44%201235%20778065>
NCAS/Centre for Environmental Data Archival Email: alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk<mailto:alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk><mailto:J.A.Pamment at rl.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<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<mailto: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<mailto: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><mailto: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><
http://stfc.ac.uk> alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk<
http://stfc.ac.uk> <mailto:cf-metadata%40cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata%2540cgd.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<
http://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.
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.
Received on Fri Feb 27 2015 - 09:46:10 GMT
