Dear Dave and Jonathan,
I think we are clear now about the definition, so it is really a question of deciding on the best terminology. There is one existing name carbon_content_of_products_of_anthropogenic_land_use_change for which we will need to create an alias no matter which solution we choose, plus two new names proposed by Dave.
So the choice is between:
(a) change the existing name to carbon_content_of_anthropogenic_product_pool
and add new names
tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon_due_to_emission_from_anthropogenic_product_pool
mass_flux_of_carbon_into_anthropogenic_product_pool_due_to_land_use_or_land_cover_change
OR
(b) change the existing name to carbon_content_of_harvested_vegetation_products
and add new names
tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon_due_to_emission_from_harvested_vegetation_products
mass_flux_of_carbon_into_harvested_vegetation_products_due_to_land_use_or_land_cover_change
As long as we have the correct definition, I don't really mind whether we go for (a) or (b). Dave, do you have a strong preference? I think the main point to consider is which terminology would be most recognizable to land use modellers (and climate modellers in general).
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.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of
> Jonathan Gregory
> Sent: 22 November 2016 18:32
> To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New LUMIP variables
>
> Dear Dave and Alison
>
> Ah, I see. What about harvested_vegetation_products? That seems a bit more
> obvious to me than anthropogenic_product_pool. It is three letters longer.
> Or even just harvested_vegetation?
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> ----- Forwarded message from David Lawrence <dlawren at ucar.edu> -----
>
> > Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 11:06:47 -0700
> > From: David Lawrence <dlawren at ucar.edu>
> > To: Alison Pamment <alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk>
> > CC: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu, Jonathan Gregory
> <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>
> > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New LUMIP variables
> >
> > I agree about the soil water variable. Revised name is good.
> >
> > As far as product pools, Alison is correct. It is anything from harvested
> > vegetation that is made into a "thing" and therefore the carbon is not sent
> > straight back to the atmosphere or to the ground. The 'thing' that is made
> > includes wood products and harvested crop yield.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 6:19 AM, <alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Jonathan,
> > >
> > > Thanks for looking through the LUMIP names again.
> > >
> > > > * mass_content_of_water_in_soil would sound clearer to me than
> > > > soil_mass_water_
> > > > content, which I misread as "soil mass". It's fine for me but I note
> > > that we
> > > > used soil_moisture_content originally because it's always called that. So
> > > > it was one of the cases where the standard name table used existing
> > > terms,
> > > > rather than more systematic ones. If Dave is happy with it we can rely
> > > on his
> > > > representing the land surface science community. :-)
> > > >
> > > OK, I hadn't realised the history of the name, but I think it is better to
> > > refer to 'water' rather than 'moisture' as long as it doesn't confuse
> > > people. I see what you mean about the order of the words.
> > > mass_content_of_water_in_soil sounds good to me so, unless Dave
> objects,
> > > let's use that version.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > * I understand better now what is meant by anthropogenic_product_pool
> > > but I
> > > > am
> > > > not clear still. Does it mean things made by people out of wood?
> > > >
> > > Dave has suggested the following definition for anthropogenic products:
> > > > "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).
> > > so I think it could be regarded as "things, including food and fuel, made
> > > by people out of harvested vegetation". Perhaps Dave can comment further.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > CF-metadata mailing list
> > > CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> > > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
> > >
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > CF-metadata mailing list
> > CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Received on Wed Nov 23 2016 - 07:52:12 GMT
