Hi Alison,
Thanks for following up! Some thoughts below...
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:00 PM, <alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk> wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Many thanks to all those who have commented in this discussion. I think we
> have reached, or are very close to reaching, agreement on many of the
> names. In this posting I have not addressed the "sea_surface" names which
> are proving to be the only contentious issue - I will deal with them in a
> separate message (to follow shortly). We need to raise the profile of that
> discussion in order to reach a fair and timely decision.
>
> The link to the full list of names with their units and definitions is
> http://cfeditor.ceda.ac.uk/proposals/1?status=active&namefil
> ter=&proposerfilter=Durack&descfilter=&unitfilter=&
> yearfilter=&commentfilter=OMIP&filter+and+display=Filter. The list has
> been updated to show the latest status of the names. The next update to the
> published standard name table will take place on 15th November when all
> names marked as 'Accepted' will be added. Any names that are accepted
> before that date will be included in the update. Another update will take
> place in December.
>
> The numbering of the sections below refers to my previous summary:
>
> 1. The following names are now accepted for inclusion in the standard name
> table.
> > mole_concentration_of_bacteria_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water, mol m-3
> > mole_concentration_of_dissolved_molecular_oxygen_in_sea_water_at_saturation,
> mol m-3
> > mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_silicon_in_sea_water, mol m-3
> > tendency_of_mole_concentration_of_particulate_organic_
> matter_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water_due_to_grazing_of_phytoplankton,
> mol m-3 s-1
> > ocean_mass_content_of_dissolved_organic_carbon, kg m-2
> > ocean_mass_content_of_particulate_organic_matter_expressed_as_carbon,
> kgm-2
> > mole_concentration_of_cfc11_in_sea_water, mol m-3
> > mole_concentration_of_cfc12_in_sea_water, mol m-3
> > surface_downward_mole_flux_of_cfc11, mol m-2 s-1
> > surface_downward_mole_flux_of_cfc12, mol m-2 s-1
>
> 2a. Phosporus names
> The following names are now accepted for inclusion in the standard name
> table.
> > mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_phosphorus_in_sea_water, mol
> m-3
> > tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_phosphorus_due_to_biological_production,
> mol m-2 s-1
>
> In addition, the spelling has now been corrected in all 'phosphorus' names.
>
> 2b. Definitions relating to new chemical species
> I agree with Roy's amendments to my suggested carbon13 and carbon14
> definitions. The new chemical species definitions for carbon13, carbon 14
> and sulfur_hexafluoride have been added to the appropriate names and the
> following four names are now accepted for inclusion in the standard name
> table:
> mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_carbon13_in_sea_water, mol m-3
> mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_carbon14_in_sea_water, mol m-3
> mole_concentration_of_sulfur_hexafluoride_in_sea_water, mol m-3
> surface_downward_mole_flux_of_sulfur_hexafluoride, mol m-3
>
> Looking at the carbon 13 and 14 names again, I suggest a slight amendment
> to the following two proposals:
> surface_downward_mass_flux_of_carbon13_dioxide_expressed_as_
> carbon_due_to_abiotic_component
> surface_downward_mass_flux_of_carbon14_dioxide_expressed_as_
> carbon_due_to_abiotic_component.
> I think these should be, respectively, expressed_as_carbon13 and
> expressed_as_carbon14 rather than simply expressed_as_carbon. Is that
> right? Up to now we have always used the generic term 'expressed_as_carbon'
> in standard names which makes no distinction between isotopes but is that
> precise enough for these names?
>
>
I'm conflicted. Jim, please make sure I have this right... On the one hand
the names Alison proposes are more precise, but on the other hand my
understanding is that calling abiotic 14C "expressed_as_carbon14" is
technically incorrect by giving people the mistaken impression that the
absolute concentration should be correct when in fact modeled
14C is referenced to a 14C:12C ratio of 1.0 rather than the real world
reference (14C:12C ratio 1.17x10^-12). I thought was chosen to minimize
numerical issues. In contrast, my understanding is that the proposed 13C
tracer is in fact simulated as a true concentration such that model
delta13C should be referenced to PeeDee Belemnite (13C:12C ratio =
0.0112372)... I have not implemented 13C, so I am not sure this is right.
In any case, it seems like a clarification description would be helpful.
2c. tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_[in]organic_carbon names
>
> I wrote:
> >
> > My question here refers to the following five proposals:
> > tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_inorganic_carbon, mol m-2 s-1
> > tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_inorganic_carbon_due_to_
> runoff_and_sediment_dissolution, mol m-2 s-1
> > tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_inorganic_carbon_due_to_runoff_and_sedimentation,
> mol m-2 s-1
> > tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_organic_carbon_due_to_
> runoff_and_sediment_dissolution, mol m-2 s-1
> > tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_organic_carbon_due_to_runoff_and_sedimentation,
> mol m-2 s-1
> >
> > We have a couple of existing names for tendencies of inorganic carbon
> content,
> > both of which are for dissolved_inorganic_carbon. Am I correct in
> thinking that
> > your names also refer to dissolved amounts? If so, we should include it,
> e.g.
> > tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_inorganic_carbon should be
> > tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_dissolved_inorganic_carbon, and so on.
>
> John wrote:
> > These terms are intended to allow users to construct a complete carbon
> budget, and were not intended to distinguish between particulate and
> dissolved. Should we restrict > the definitions and add more terms? add
> "total" to the name before "inorganic"? Please note that the names listed
> above with "sedimentation" are incorrect. As they are
> > intended to represent loss from the ocean, they should not have
> "runoff_and". Like in Paul's spreadsheet, they should just be
> > "tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_inorganic_carbon_due_to_sedimentation"
> and "tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_organic_carbon_due_to_
> sedimentation".
> > These are effectively both "particulate" since they just represent
> pelagic sinking in current models to my knowledge, though it is possible
> that models might include insitu
> > benthic organic production and/or inorganic precipitation which could be
> represented as a dissolved loss. Of course, "sediment dissolution" would
> be just dissolved, but
> > runoff could be either particulate or dissolved... did you want to
> distinguish between them?
>
> OK, thank you for the clarification. Since you intend to include both
> particulate and dissolved carbon, the names are in fact fine (I just wanted
> to check). In CF, an unqualified term is always interpreted as a 'total'
> amount and if only a component is intended, e.g. dissolved, particulate, it
> should be included in the name.
>
> Existing sedimentation names do not specify 'particulate' but it is
> included in the definition using the following sentence: ' "Sedimentation"
> is the sinking of particulate matter to the floor of a body of water.' Is
> that adequate? If we included an additional sentence 'Some models may also
> include insitu benthic organic production and/or inorganic precipitation',
> would that be useful or would it just confuse people?
>
> You say that some of the names themselves are listed incorrectly, so again
> just to clarify, is the following correct?
> tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_inorganic_carbon, mol m-2 s-1
> tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_inorganic_carbon_due_to_
> runoff_and_sediment_dissolution, mol m-2 s-1
> tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_inorganic_carbon_due_to_sedimentation,
> mol m-2 s-1
> tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_organic_carbon_due_to_
> runoff_and_sediment_dissolution, mol m-2 s-1
> tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_organic_carbon_due_to_sedimentation,
> mol m-2 s-1
>
>
Yes.
> 2e. Limitation names
> Jonathan has suggested that we include the term 'growth' in these names,
> to which John has agreed. Also, Jonathan is suggesting the use of our well
> established "due_to" syntax for the solar irradiance names e.g.,
> growth_limitation_of_miscellaneous_phytoplankton_due_to_solar_irradiance.
> I think this is clear. So the names would then be as follows:
>
> growth_limitation_of_picophytoplankton_due_to_solar_irradiance (canonical
> units: 1)
> growth_limitation_of_calcareous_phytoplankton_due_to_solar_irradiance
> (canonical units: 1)
> growth_limitation_of_diazotrophs_due_to_solar_irradiance (canonical
> units: 1)
> growth_limitation_of_diatoms_due_to_solar_irradiance (canonical units: 1)
> growth_limitation_of_miscellaneous_phytoplankton_due_to_solar_irradiance
> (canonical units: 1)
> nitrogen_growth_limitation_of_picophytoplankton (canonical units: 1)
> nitrogen_growth_limitation_of_calcareous_phytoplankton (canonical units:
> 1)
> nitrogen_growth_limitation_of_diazotrophs (canonical units: 1)
> nitrogen_growth_limitation_of_diatoms (canonical units: 1)
> nitrogen_growth_limitation_of_miscellaneous_phytoplankton (canonical
> units: 1)
> iron_growth_limitation_of_picophytoplankton (canonical units: 1)
> iron_growth_limitation_of_calcareous_phytoplankton (canonical units: 1)
> iron_growth_limitation_of_diazotrophs (canonical units: 1)
> iron_growth_limitation_of_diatoms (canonical units: 1)
> iron_growth_limitation_of_miscellaneous_phytoplankton (canonical units: 1)
>
> OK?
>
>
OK
> John asked a question about where the definition text should go - the
> answer is that it resides in the published standard name table:
> http://cfconventions.org/Data/cf-standard-names/current/buil
> d/cf-standard-name-table.html (click on a name to see its definition).
> (Almost) all standard names have definitions but they don't need to be
> reproduced in the data files. Those wishing to access the information can
> obtain it from a number of sources, namely the html table, the xml version
> (which is actually the 'master' copy of standard names)
> http://cfconventions.org/Data/cf-standard-names/current/src/
> cf-standard-name-table.xml or the NERC vocabulary server which is
> developed and maintained by the British Oceanographic Data Centre
> http://vocab.nerc.ac.uk/collection/P07/current/.
>
>
Thanks, yes, now I understand.
> John suggested some refinements to the wording of the definitions, so
> taking these into account, my two examples would now be as follows.
>
> growth_limitation_of_miscellaneous_phytoplankton_due_to_solar_irradiance
> 'Phytoplankton are algae that live near the grow where there is sufficient
> light to support photosynthesis. "Miscellaneous phytoplankton" are all
> those phytoplankton that are not diatoms, diazotrophs, calcareous
> phytoplankton, picophytoplankton or other separately named components of
> the phytoplankton population. The specification of a physical process by
> the phrase "due_to_" process means that the quantity named is a single term
> in a sum of terms which together compose the general quantity named by
> omitting the phrase. "Irradiance" means the power per unit area (called
> radiative flux in other standard names), the area being normal to the
> direction of flow of the radiant energy. Solar irradiance is essential to
> the photosynthesis reaction and its presence promotes the growth of
> phytoplankton populations. "Growth limitation due to solar irradiance"
> means the ratio of the growth rate of a species population in the
> environment (where the amount of sunlight reaching a location may be
> limited) to the theoretical growth rate if there were no such limit on
> solar irradiance.'
>
> nitrogen_growth_limitation_of_diatoms
> 'Diatoms are phytoplankton with an external skeleton made of silica.
> Phytoplankton are algae that grow where there is sufficient light to
> support photosynthesis. Nitrogen is a nutrient essential to the growth of
> phytoplankton populations. "Nitrogen growth limitation" means the ratio of
> the growth rate of a species population in the environment (where there is
> a finite availability of nitrogen) to the theoretical growth rate if there
> were no such limit on nitrogen availability.'
>
> Are these OK?
>
>
Those look fine to me.
> John, Jim and Paul, if you are happy with these names and sample
> definitions then I think the limitation names can all be accepted for
> publication. I will then construct definitions for them all, consistent
> with the examples.
>
> One final note about these phytoplankton names: Roy queried whether we
> have the best classification system for the different types of
> phytoplankton, i.e. we are currently mixing size and species as ways of
> delineating sections of the population. All I can say is that this is the
> system that was first proposed for CMIP5 and is being used again in CMIP6.
> Nothing else has ever been proposed. I agree that if new categories are
> ever proposed we will need to take account of the existing names, and in
> particular we may then need to think hard about the definition of
> 'miscellaneous phytoplankton'. However, in the time honoured tradition of
> CF, I propose to defer this discussion until such time as there is a clear
> need to change what we are doing. I hope that's OK.
>
>
Fine with me.
> 2f. Natural/abiotic component names
>
> I confess that I have struggled somewhat to understand these names,
> although it's becoming gradually clearer. I do see now that we need both
> sets of names and that the "natural analogue" names are model diagnostics
> rather than forcing conditions.
>
> In John's most recent posting he suggests names and definitions of the
> form:
> mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_carbon_natural_
> analogue_in_sea_water
> Dissolved inorganic carbon (CO3+HCO3+H2CO3) concentration natural analogue
> forced by preindustrial atmospheric xCO2
>
> mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_carbon_abiotic_
> analogue_in_sea_water
> Dissolved inorganic carbon (CO3+HCO3+H2CO3) concentration abiotic analogue
> ignoring biological effects on carbon and alkalinity
>
> Certainly I think these names are a lot better and the terminology
> "natural analogue" and "abiotic analogue" is useful. We need to think about
> how this, or a similar, syntax will work in a standardised way with all the
> proposed natural and abiotic names. For example, how would we rewrite
> surface_mole_concentration_of_carbonate_expressed_as_carbon_
> in_sea_water_due_to_natural_component? Perhaps we could replace the
> "due_to_X" in the current proposals with "X_analogue" at the end of the
> name or we could prepend it with "X_analogue_of". This would mean that the
> new names are consistent with many existing ones and would simply contain
> an additional qualification, e.g.
> [sea_]surface_mole_concentration_of_carbonate_expressed_as_
> carbon_in_sea_water_natural_analogue
> or
> natural_analogue_of_[sea_]surface_ mole_concentration_of_carbonat
> e_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water.
>
> How does that sound?
I prefer:
[sea_]surface_mole_concentration_of_carbonate_natural_analogue_expressed_as_
carbon_in_sea_water
> If we can settle on a syntax, then the definitions shouldn't be too
> difficult to sort out. We'd need some explanatory words for the analogues,
> which should include some information about when these names might be used
> (for the benefit of the many CF users who will be totally unfamiliar with
> the OMIP experiments). Based on John's text I'd suggest the following:
> natural_analogue
> 'In ocean biogeochemistry models, a "natural analogue" is used to simulate
> the effect on a modelled variable of imposing preindustrial atmospheric
> carbon dioxide concentrations, even when the model as a whole may be
> subjected to varying forcings.'
> abiotic_analogue
> 'In ocean biogeochemistry models, an "abiotic analogue" is used to
> simulate the effect on a modelled variable when biological effects on ocean
> carbon concentration and alkalinity are ignored.'
>
> Based on the above, an example of a full definition would then be
> something like:
> surface_carbon_dioxide_partial_pressure_difference_between_
> sea_water_and_air_natural_analogue
> 'The surface called "surface" means the lower boundary of the atmosphere.
> The partial pressure of a gaseous constituent of air is the pressure which
> it alone would exert with unchanged temperature and number of moles per
> unit volume. The chemical formula for carbon dioxide is CO2. In ocean
> biogeochemistry models, a "natural analogue" is used to simulate the effect
> on a modelled variable of imposing preindustrial atmospheric carbon dioxide
> concentrations, even when the model as a whole may be subjected to varying
> forcings.'
>
> Any good?
>
Those look good to me.
Thanks again for all your help, John
>
> Best wishes,
> Alison
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of
> > alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk
> > Sent: 19 October 2016 19:16
> > To: durack1 at llnl.gov; cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> > Cc: stephen.griffies at noaa.gov; gokhan at ucar.edu
> > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New standard names for OMIP biogeochemistry
> and
> > chemistry
> >
> > Dear Paul, Jim and Jonathan,
> >
> > Thank you for all the proposals for OMIP biogeochemistry and chemistry
> names
> > and the discussion that has already begun on these.
> >
> > I have created entries for all the proposed names in the CEDA vocabulary
> > editor, available here:
> > http://cfeditor.ceda.ac.uk/proposals/1?status=active&namefil
> ter=&proposerfilt
> > er=Durack&descfilter=&unitfilter=&yearfilter=&commentfilter=
> OMIP&filter+and
> > +display=Filter.
> > At the moment, the names themselves are all shown as originally proposed
> and
> > I have added standard definition text for consistency with existing
> names.
> > Please use the link to view the full list of names and definitions as it
> is easier
> > than reproducing it all in an email to the list.
> >
> > I think a number of the names look fine and could be published in their
> current
> > form (see item 1 below). Paul and Jim, please can you check the
> definitions that
> > I'm suggesting for these names and let me know if you're happy with them?
> > (Comments from others are of course welcome).
> >
> > For the groups of names where some discussion is still required my
> comments
> > are in item 2.
> >
> > 1. Names that I think can be approved, subject to checking of the
> definitions.
> >
> > mole_concentration_of_bacteria_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water, mol m-3
> > mole_concentration_of_dissolved_molecular_oxygen_in_sea_water_at_saturat
> > ion, mol m-3
> > mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_silicon_in_sea_water, mol m-3
> > tendency_of_mole_concentration_of_particulate_organic_matter_expressed_a
> > s_carbon_in_sea_water_due_to_grazing_of_phytoplankton, mol m-3 s-1
> > ocean_mass_content_of_dissolved_organic_carbon, kg m-2
> > ocean_mass_content_of_particulate_organic_matter_expressed_as_carbon, kg
> > m-2
> > mole_concentration_of_cfc11_in_sea_water, mol m-3
> > mole_concentration_of_cfc12_in_sea_water, mol m-3
> > surface_downward_mole_flux_of_cfc11, mol m-2 s-1
> > surface_downward_mole_flux_of_cfc12, mol m-2 s-1
> >
> > 2. Names requiring further discussion.
> >
> > a. Phosphorus names
> > Sorry that I didn't notice it when previewing the names, but I have
> realized that
> > 'phosphorus' is misspelled in the proposals, i.e., it should be
> 'phosphorus', not
> > 'phosphorous'. Subject to this correction and checking of the
> definitions, I think
> > the following names can be approved.
> > mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_phosphorus_in_sea_water, mol
> m-
> > 3
> > tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_phosphorous_due_to_biological_product
> > ion, mol m-2 s-1
> >
> > I will also correct the spelling in three further phosphorus names which
> remain
> > under discussion due to other issues:
> > surface_mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_phosphorous_in_sea_wat
> > er, mol m-3
> > surface_mole_concentration_of_particulate_organic_matter_expressed_as_ph
> > osphorus_in_sea_water, mol m-3
> > surface_mole_concentration_of_phytoplankton_expressed_as_phosphorus_in_
> > sea_water, mol m-3
> >
> > b. Definitions relating to new chemical species
> > It is usual to include a sentence in the definition when a standard name
> refers
> > to a chemical species. There are three new species/isotopes in the
> current set
> > of proposals. I suggest adding a single sentence to the definitions of
> the
> > relevant names as follows:
> >
> > carbon13: ' "carbon13" means the naturally occurring isotope of carbon
> having
> > six protons and seven neutrons.'
> > carbon14: ' "carbon14" means the radioactive isotope of carbon having six
> > protons and eight neutrons, used in radiocarbon dating.'
> > sulfur_hexafluoride: 'The chemical formula of sulfur hexafluoride is
> SF6.'
> >
> > OK?
> >
> > c. tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_[in]organic_carbon names
> >
> > My question here refers to the following five proposals:
> > tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_inorganic_carbon, mol m-2 s-1
> > tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_inorganic_carbon_due_to_runoff_and_s
> > ediment_dissolution, mol m-2 s-1
> > tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_inorganic_carbon_due_to_runoff_and_s
> > edimentation, mol m-2 s-1
> > tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_organic_carbon_due_to_runoff_and_sed
> > iment_dissolution, mol m-2 s-1
> > tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_organic_carbon_due_to_runoff_and_sed
> > imentation, mol m-2 s-1
> >
> > We have a couple of existing names for tendencies of inorganic carbon
> content,
> > both of which are for dissolved_inorganic_carbon. Am I correct in
> thinking that
> > your names also refer to dissolved amounts? If so, we should include it,
> e.g.
> > tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_inorganic_carbon should be
> > tendency_of_ocean_mole_content_of_dissolved_inorganic_carbon, and so on.
> >
> > d. Surface concentration names
> > There are a lot of these: 42 surface_mole_concentration names (units of
> mol m-
> > 3), 6 surface_mass_concentration names (kg m-3) and I'm also including 2
> > surface_sea_water_alkalinity (mol m-3) names and 3 surface_sea_water_ph
> > names in this section.
> >
> > My concern about these proposals is that the names and units are not
> > consistent. In CF standard names, "surface" means the lower boundary of
> the
> > atmosphere. It has no depth, so it is not meaningful to regard it as
> having a
> > mass or a volume. For this reason we can't assign units of kg m-3 or mol
> m-3 to
> > a 'surface' name. I assume that all these quantities are in fact "near
> surface"
> > values, i.e. representative of the top model layer, in which case there
> are two
> > possible ways to deal with this.
> >
> > The first solution is simply to remove 'surface' from all these names and
> > instead use a vertical coordinate or scalar coordinate and coordinate
> bounds to
> > indicate the location and thickness of the layer. This has the advantage
> that
> > many of the required names actually already exist, without the need to
> > introduce separate surface names. E.g, instead of adding a new name
> > surface_mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_carbon_in_sea_water,
> > you could use the existing name
> > mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_carbon_in_sea_water
> > accompanied by suitable coordinate information to describe your quantity.
> >
> > The second solution, if you do feel that it is necessary to have
> distinct standard
> > names for all these near-surface quantities, would be to follow the
> approach
> > used in some existing sea_surface names such as sea_surface_temperature
> > and sea_surface_salinity. The names would then be 'sea_surface' names and
> > there would be an accompanying sentence in the definition to explain
> what that
> > means, i.e. that it refers to water close to the surface. You would
> still also need
> > to include the coordinate information and coordinate bounds to fully
> describe
> > your data. With this approach the proposed name
> > surface_mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_carbon_in_sea_water
> > would become
> > sea_surface_mole_concentration_of_dissolved_inorganic_carbon.
> >
> > Either solution would be consistent with the proposed units and I'd be
> happy
> > with either. Please let me know how you prefer to proceed.
> >
> > As a final point in this section, the three proposed surface_sea_water_ph
> > names are dimensionless, but I imagine that these too are really
> intended to
> > represent the top model layer, in which case we should either drop
> 'surface' or
> > change them to 'sea_surface' names too.
> >
> > e. Limitation names
> > Jonathan has already raised the question of what 'limitation' means and
> also
> > what measure of the various phytoplankton populations is being limited.
> This is
> > a new concept in standard names so it's important to get the definitions
> right.
> >
> > John Dunne replied to Jonathan:
> > > With respect to the limitation terms, we currently have the definitions
> > explained in the "Resolved Comment" column as "Ratio of realizable
> > miscellaneous other
> > > phytoplankton growth rate under low nitrogen stress to theoretical rate
> > without such limitation".
> >
> > So from this, my understanding is that nitrogen and iron are nutrients
> whose
> > availability promotes the growth of phytoplankton, presumably by being
> > absorbed somehow into the organic matter, while solar irradiance is
> clearly the
> > energy source essential to the photosynthesis reaction. John's reply
> talks about
> > growth rate, so I assume that means the growth rate of the population of
> a
> > particular species (as opposed to the growth rate of individuals of that
> species).
> >
> > Based on this I've attempted a couple of example definitions. If we can
> agree
> > these, then I can go ahead and add the appropriate sentences to all the
> > limitation names.
> > nitrogen_limitation_of_diatoms (canonical units: 1)
> > 'Diatoms are single-celled phytoplankton with an external skeleton made
> of
> > silica. Phytoplankton are autotrophic prokaryotic or eukaryotic algae
> that live
> > near the water surface where there is sufficient light to support
> photosynthesis.
> > Nitrogen is a nutrient essential to the growth of phytoplankton
> populations.
> > "Nitrogen limitation" means the ratio of the growth rate of a species
> population
> > in the environment (where there is a finite availability of nitrogen) to
> the
> > theoretical growth rate if there were no such limit on nitrogen
> availability.'
> >
> > N.B. For the irradiance names, I suggest we make them 'solar_irradiance'
> to be
> > absolutely clear.
> > solar_irradiance_limitation_of_miscellaneous_phytoplankton (canonical
> > units:1)
> > 'Phytoplankton are autotrophic prokaryotic or eukaryotic algae that live
> near the
> > water surface where there is sufficient light to support photosynthesis.
> > "Miscellaneous phytoplankton" are all those phytoplankton that are not
> > diatoms, diazotrophs, calcareous phytoplankton, picophytoplankton or
> other
> > separately named components of the phytoplankton population. "Irradiance"
> > means the power per unit area (called radiative flux in other standard
> names),
> > the area being normal to the direction of flow of the radiant energy.
> Solar
> > irradiance is essential to the photosynthesis reaction and its presence
> > promotes the growth of phytoplankton populations. "Solar irradiance
> limitation"
> > means the ratio of the growth rate of a species population in the
> environment
> > (where the amount of sunlight reaching a location may be limited) to the
> > theoretical growth rate if there were no such limit on solar irradiance.'
> >
> > Comments and suggestions for improvement are welcome!
> >
> > f. Natural/abiotic component names
> > Thank you for the useful discussion that has already taken place about
> the 22
> > proposed natural_component and abiotic_component names. I hadn't
> > previously understood the details of how the OMIP experiments will be
> run.
> >
> > Reading through the discussion, I agree with Jonathan that the
> > natural_component names seem to be describing the forcing conditions for
> the
> > model, rather than being a separate set of diagnostics that represent the
> > effects of some process within the model. Hence I agree that it isn't
> necessary
> > to define separate standard names with due_to_natural_component and I'd
> > advocate leaving them out. Is that OK?
> >
> > I think we're agreed that the abiotic names are needed, and if I've
> understood
> > correctly we seem to have agreed to stick with due_to_abiotic_component
> > because it works for all the names where it's used, including ph names.
> Is that
> > right?
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Alison
> >
>
> ------
> Alison Pamment Tel: +44
> 1235 778065
> Centre for Environmental Data Analysis Email:
> alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk
> STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> R25, 2.22
> Harwell Campus, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20161110/f0715ce8/attachment-0001.html>
Received on Thu Nov 10 2016 - 10:59:45 GMT
