Hi Alison,
Responses are embedded below.
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 5:57 AM, <alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk> wrote:
> Dear Dave,
>
> Thank you for proposing new standard names for LUMIP and apologies for the
> delay in responding. Thanks also to Jonathan for commenting in this
> discussion.
>
> I have added the LUMIP proposals to my list of standard names under
> discussion and you can view a summary of them all here:
> http://cfeditor.ceda.ac.uk/proposals/1?status=active&namefil
> ter=&proposerfilter=&descfilter=&unitfilter=&yearfilter=&com
> mentfilter=LUMIP&filter+and+display=Filter. This shows the latest status
> of the names, including changes that have already been agreed during the
> discussion.
>
> I have not added an entry for surface_net_downward_mass_flux
> _of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon_due_to_all_land_processes because,
> as Jonathan pointed out, this is actually an existing name.
>
> Regarding your other proposals, please see below for my comments on the
> individual names.
>
> 1. moisture_content_of_soil_layer (canonical units: kg m-2)
> 'Moisture in top 10 cm of soil column of land use tile.'
>
> soil_moisture_content (canonical units: kg m-2)
> 'Total soil moisture'.
>
> Jonathan is correct that these two names already exist. However, the
> reason I suggested raising them on the mailing list is that I think we
> should improve the wording of the existing names by changing them to
> mass_content_of_water_in_soil_layer and soil_mass_content_of_water
> respectively. This would make the syntax of the soil names more consistent
> with other existing names such as atmosphere_mass_content_of_water and
> mass_content_of_water_vapor_in_atmosphere_layer, for example. There are
> also existing soil names that refer to "frozen_water" and "condensed_water"
> rather than "moisture" so I think it would be sensible to standardize the
> terminology used across all the names. The soil names could continue to use
> their existing definitions as follows:
>
> mass_content_of_water_in_soil_layer (kg m-2)
> ' "Water" means water in all phases. "Content" indicates a quantity per
> unit area. "Layer" means any layer with upper and lower boundaries that
> have constant values in some vertical coordinate. There must be a vertical
> coordinate variable indicating the extent of the layer(s). If the layers
> are model layers, the vertical coordinate can be model_level_number, but it
> is recommended to specify a physical coordinate (in a scalar or auxiliary
> coordinate variable) as well. Quantities defined for a soil layer must have
> a vertical coordinate variable with boundaries indicating the extent of the
> layer(s).'
>
> soil_mass_content_of_water (kg m-2)
> ' "Water" means water in all phases. "Content" indicates a quantity per
> unit area. The "soil content" of a quantity refers to the vertical integral
> from the surface down to the bottom of the soil model. For the content
> between specified levels in the soil, standard names including
> content_of_soil_layer are used.'
>
> Is this OK? If so, I think these names can be accepted for inclusion in
> the standard name table (the older versions of the names would be retained
> as aliases).
>
This is fine with me. Presumably this will affect not only LUMIP variable
request but that of other MIPs like LS3MIP. But, main thing is getting a
consistent naming convention and this seems good.
>
> 2. surface_downward_mass_flux_of_water_due_to_crop_irrigation
> (canonical_units: kg m-2)
> 'cropland irrigation flux'
>
> I think the name and units are fine. We need to expand the definition and
> based on text used for existing names I would suggest:
> ' "Downward" indicates a vector component which is positive when directed
> downward (negative upward). The surface called "surface" means the lower
> boundary of the atmosphere. In accordance with common usage in geophysical
> disciplines, "flux" implies per unit area, called "flux density" in
> physics. 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.'
>
> Is this OK? I am wondering if this name refers to any particular
> definition of 'crop', for example, arable crops, fruit trees, trees grown
> for timber, or perhaps all of the above? It would be useful to add that
> into the text too.
>
I would suggest changing to (note the unit change as well as name change),
removing the term crop to be more general.
surface_downward_mass_flux_of_water_due_to_irrigation (canonical_units: kg
m-2 s-1 or kg s-1)
The description would then be: Irrigation flux including any irrigation
for crops, trees, pasture, or urban lawns.
As with other flux variables, is the per unit area implied since this is a
flux term?
>
> 3. surface_upward_sensible_heat_flux_due_to_anthropogenic_energy_consumption
> (canonical units: W m-2)
> ' anthropogenic heat flux'
>
> I note that after discussion with Jonathan, Dave has agreed that the name
> should be more general, i.e., it is not only a sensible heat flux and the
> proposal is now
> surface_upward_heat_flux_due_to_anthropogenic_energy_consumption (Wm-2).
>
> That name and the units are fine, so now we need a definition. Based on
> the definitions of existing names we would have the following:
> 'The surface called "surface" means the lower boundary of the atmosphere.
> "Upward" indicates a vector component which is positive when directed
> upward (negative downward). The vertical heat flux in air is the sum of all
> heat fluxes i.e. radiative, latent and sensible. In accordance with common
> usage in geophysical disciplines, "flux" implies per unit area, called
> "flux density" in physics. 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. "Anthropogenic" means influenced, caused, or created
> by human activity.'
>
> Does 'anthropogenic_energy_consumption' mean all anthropogenic processes,
> e.g., domestic, industrial, transport, agriculture, and so on? It would
> make the definition (and hence the name) more useful if we can say
> something about which processes are included or excluded.
>
Anthropogenic heat flux generated from non-renewable human primary energy
consumption, including energy use by vehicles, commercial and residential
buildings, industry, and power plants. Primary energy refers to energy in
natural resources, fossil and nonfossil, before conversion into other
forms, such as electricity.
>
> 4. tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_carbon_due_to_emissio
> n_from_anthropogenic_product_pool (canonical units: kg s-1)
> ' flux from anthropogenic pools on land use tile into atmosphere'
>
> Jonathan asked whether this name should really be
> carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon and Dave has agreed, so the proposal
> is now
> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_carbon_dioxide_expres
> sed_as_carbon_due_to_emission_from_anthropogenic_product_pool (kg s-1).
>
> Jonathan asked about the meaning of the term "anthropogenic_product_pool"
> and David replied as follows:
> > Anthropogenic product pools are carbon pools where carbon from wood or
> crop
> > harvest is put. I am not sure that there is a generally accepted term
> for
> > this, but anthropogenic product pools is commonly used and should be
> > understood (with the additional comments) by those in the land modeling
> > community.
>
> We do have one existing standard name, introduced for CMIP5,
> carbon_content_of_products_of_anthropogenic_land_use_change with the
> following definition:
> ' "Content" indicates a quantity per unit area.
> "products_of_anthropogenic_land_use_change" means the different
> end-products of wood that has been removed from the environment by
> deforestation. Examples are paper, cardboard, furniture and timber for
> construction. Models that simulate land use changes have one or more pools
> of carbon that represent these products in order to conserve carbon and
> allow its eventual release into the atmosphere, for example, when the
> products decompose in landfill sites. "Anthropogenic" means influenced,
> caused, or created by human activity.'
>
> I think the existing definition sounds very similar to Dave's description,
> so I suggest we keep it and use it in all the anthropogenic product names.
> For consistency with the LUMIP proposals, I suggest we change the existing
> name to carbon_content_of_anthropogenic_product_pool.
>
> So the LUMIP name and definition would then be as follows:
> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_carbon_dioxide_expres
> sed_as_carbon_due_to_emission_from_anthropogenic_product_pool (kg s-1)
> "tendency_of_X" means derivative of X with respect to time. The phrase
> "expressed_as" is used in the construction A_expressed_as_B, where B is a
> chemical constituent of A. It means that the quantity indicated by the
> standard name is calculated solely with respect to the B contained in A,
> neglecting all other chemical constituents of A. The chemical formula for
> carbon dioxide is CO2. "Content" indicates a quantity per unit area. The
> "atmosphere content" of a quantity refers to the vertical integral from the
> surface to the top of the atmosphere. For the content between specified
> levels in the atmosphere, standard names including
> "content_of_atmosphere_layer" are used. 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. "Emission" means emission from a primary
> source located anywhere within the atmosphere, including at the lower
> boundary (i.e. the surface of the earth). "Emission" is a process entirely
> distinct from "re-emission" which is used in some standard names.
> "anthropogenic_product_pool" means the different end-products of wood that
> has been removed from the environment by deforestation or harvesting.
> Examples are paper, cardboard, furniture and timber for construction.
> Models that simulate land use changes have one or more pools of carbon that
> represent these products in order to conserve carbon and allow its eventual
> release into the atmosphere, for example, when the products decompose in
> landfill sites. "Anthropogenic" means influenced, caused, or created by
> human activity.'
>
> Is this OK? If so, I think this name (and the creation of an alias for the
> existing product pool name) can be accepted for publication in the standard
> name table.
>
Yes, this is OK, but we should add to the list of examples: "Examples are
paper, cardboard, timber for construction, and crop harvest for food or
fuel." (Some models put crop harvest into a short time-scale 'product' pool
which is treated the same way (e-folding decay) as the wood product pool).
>
> 5. carbon_mass_flux_into_anthropogenic_product_pools_due_to_land_use_land_cover_change
> (canonical units: kg s-1)
> 'carbon harvested due to land-use or land-cover change process that enters
> anthropogenic product pools on tile'
>
> In this case is it correct to refer simply to 'carbon' rather than
> carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon? (Either would be OK, we just need to
> choose the most appropriate phrase). Following one of Jonathan's comments
> should we refer to 'land_use_or_land_cover_change'? Thus the name and
> definition would then be:
> mass_flux_of_carbon_into_anthropogenic_product_pool_due_to_land_use_or_land_cover_change
> (kg s-1)
> 'In accordance with common usage in geophysical disciplines, "flux"
> implies per unit area, called "flux density" in physics. 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.
> "anthropogenic_product_pool" means the different end-products of wood that
> has been removed from the environment by deforestation or harvesting.
> Examples are paper, cardboard, furniture and timber for construction.
> Models that simulate land use changes have one or more pools of carbon that
> represent these products in order to conserve carbon and allow its eventual
> release into the atmosphere, for example, when the products decompose in
> landfill sites. "Anthropogenic" means influenced, caused, or created by
> human activity.'
>
> OK?
>
> It is more appropriate to refer to 'carbon' rather than
'carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon'. Please add, as above to the
examples: Examples are paper, cardboard, timber for construction, and crop
harvest for food or fuel.
> 6. carbon_mass_flux_into_soil_or_litter_pools_due_to_land_use_land_cover_change
> (canonical_units: kg s-1)
> 'carbon transferred to soil or litter pools due to land-use or land-cover
> change processes on tile'
>
> As with the previous proposal, is it correct to refer simply to 'carbon'
> rather than carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon? Dave and Jonathan agreed
> that we should refer to 'land_use_or_land_cover_change. Perhaps the name
> should say soil_and_litter, rather than soil_or_litter because presumably
> the carbon is going into both pools? Also, existing names refer simply to
> 'soil' and/or 'litter' without using the word 'pool', so I think we should
> leave that word out for consistency.
>
> So then the name would be:
> carbon_mass_flux_into_soil_and_litter_due_to_land_use_or_land_cover_change
> (kg s-1)
> 'In accordance with common usage in geophysical disciplines, "flux"
> implies per unit area, called "flux density" in physics. "Litter" is dead
> plant material in or above the soil. 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.'
>
> OK?
>
It is more appropriate to refer to 'carbon' rather than
'carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon'. Leaving out the word pool is fine.
Changing to soil and litter is fine.
>
> 7. carbon_mass_flux_direct_to_atmosphere_due_to_land_use_land_cover_change
> (canonical units: kg s1)
> 'carbon transferred directly to atmosphere due to any land-use or
> land-cover change activities including deforestation or agricultural fire'
>
> Jonathan suggested that this name would be better expressed as
> surface_upward_mass_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carb
> on_due_to_land_use_or_land_cover_change for consistency with other
> surface flux names and Dave agreed with this change. For the definition, I
> note that agricultural fires are included but what about natural ones? Do
> all these 'land_use_or_land_cover_change' names really refer to
> anthropogenic changes rather than natural ones? If so, we should really say
> 'anthropogenic_land_use_or_land_cover_change' in all of them.
>
Natural fire or natural land cover change due to shifts in vegetation
biogeography should not be included. Generally, the term land-use and
land-cover change implies anthropogenic, but to be more explicit, it would
be appropriate to add 'anthropogenic' in front of land-use and land-cover
change.
>
> 8. change_over_time_in_area_fraction (canonical units: 1)
> 'annual gross fraction of land use tile that was transferred into other
> land use tiles'
> Jonathan suggested that this quantity could be described as
> tendency_of_area_fraction (canonical unit: s-1) and that units of yr-1
> could be used in the data files. Dave agreed that this would be an
> acceptable approach.
>
> Thus the name, units and definition would be:
> tendency_of_area_fraction (s-1)
> ' "tendency_of_X" means derivative of X with respect to time.
> "X_area_fraction" means the fraction of horizontal area occupied by X.
> Annual gross fraction of land use tile that was transferred into other land
> use tiles.'
>
> OK? If so, I think this one can be accepted for inclusion in the standard
> name table.
>
> Note that we want to track two variables separately, which we originally
labeled something like:
tendency_of_area_fraction_transitioned_out_of_land_use_tile (s-1)
annual gross fraction that was transferred out of this tile to other land
use tiles
tendency_of_area_fraction_transitioned_into_land_use_tile (s-1)
annual gross fraction that was transferred into this tile from other land
use tiles
The goal here is to be able to track the gross transitions. In principle,
for example, in a grid cell you could have 50% primary_and_secondary_land
and 50% cropland and then transfer all of the primary_and_secondary_land to
cropland and all of the cropland to primary_and_secondary_land giving a net
change of zero but a gross change of 50% in either direction. We want to
be able to track the gross change so we need to know both what is being
transferred out and transferred in for each land use tile.
Thanks,
Dave
> 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.
>
>
> From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of
> David Lawrence
> Sent: 29 September 2016 23:10
> To: Jonathan Gregory; Elena Shevliakova
> Cc: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New LUMIP variables
>
> Thanks for your detailed assessment Jonathan,
>
> Answers embedded below.
> Thanks,
> Dave
>
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Jonathan Gregory <
> j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk> wrote:
> Dear Dave
>
> Thanks for the text listing of your proposals. Here are a few comments:
>
> These ones are existing standard names:
> surface_net_downward_mass_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_a
> s_carbon_due_to_all_land_processes
> moisture_content_of_soil_layer
> soil_moisture_content
> OK. Alison Pamment suggested that we post these to the list, so I did,
> but I think you are right.
>
> I see that there is already a standard name of surface_downward_water_flux.
> For consistency, I think the existing standard name should be changed (by
> alias) to surface_downward_mass_flux_of_water for consistency with your
> proposal
> surface_downward_mass_flux_of_water_due_to_crop_irrigation
> or yours should be changed to
> surface_downward_water_flux_due_to_crop_irrigation
> Changing our name to surface_downward_water_flux_due_to_crop_irrigation
> is good.
> * surface_upward_sensible_heat_flux_due_to_anthropogenic_energ
> y_consumption
> In the definition you call this "anthropogenic heat flux". That sounds more
> general. Is it really an upward sensible heat flux specifically - no latent
> heat flux, for instance? Or do you mean the heat released per unit area and
> per unit time by anthropogenic energy use, no matter what happens to it?
>
> Yes, this should be more general: surface_upward_heat_flux_due_t
> o_anthropogenic_energy_consumption
>
> * tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_carbon_due_to_emissio
> n_from_anthropogenic_product_pool
> Is this really carbon and not carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon, like
> others? What is the difference between this and the existing standard name
> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_carbon_dioxide_expres
> sed_as_carbon_due_to_anthropogenic_emission
> Actually I don't know what "anthropogenic product pool" means. It isn't a
> phrase known to Google. Is there an alternative? Consequently I also don't
> understand this one
> carbon_mass_flux_into_anthropogenic_product_pools_due_to_lan
> d_use_land_cover_change
>
> Anthropogenic product pools are carbon pools where carbon from wood or
> crop harvest is put. I am not sure that there is a generally accepted term
> for this, but anthropogenic product pools is commonly used and should be
> understood (with the additional comments) by those in the land modeling
> community. So, the term tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_co
> ntent_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon_due_to_anthropogenic_emission
> would include tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_carbon_due_to_emissio
> n_from_anthropogenic_product_pool as one of it's components. Agreed
> about adding _of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon to this standard name.
>
> * carbon_mass_flux_into_soil_or_litter_pools_due_to_land_use_l
> and_cover_change
> I guess this should be ..._due_to_land_use_or_land_cover_change
>
> Correct.
>
>
> * carbon_mass_flux_direct_to_atmosphere_due_to_land_use_land_cover_change
> By analogy with several existing names of the form
> surface_upward_mass_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon_due_to_X
> could this one be
> surface_upward_mass_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carb
> on_due_to_land_use_or_land_cover_change
>
> Yes, if this is the common form, then that would be correct.
>
> * change_over_time_in_area_fraction
> It is OK for this to be change_over_time but would it be better as a rate
> i.e.
> tendency_of_area_fraction
> for which the canonical unit would be s-1? It could still be expressed as
> yr-1 so numerically the same.
> I think that this would be ok, especially if that is how other
> area_fraction change variables are reported.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20161121/ef7bac18/attachment-0001.html>
Received on Mon Nov 21 2016 - 15:31:53 GMT
