Dear Dave
Thanks for entertaining this discussion. If the experts are unanimous then I
will agree with you ... but not without one last try! :-) Google finds
"anthropogenic product pool" only in your paper and this discussion, so it's
not a well-known phrase. In your paper you say
Anthropogenic product pool is wood or food product pools
so could you use the phrase wood_and_food_products for it?
Best wishes
Jonathan
----- Forwarded message from David Lawrence <dlawren at ucar.edu> -----
> Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 09:16:18 -0700
> From: David Lawrence <dlawren at ucar.edu>
> To: Alison Pamment <alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk>
> CC: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>, cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New LUMIP variables
>
> I checked with Chris Jones of C4MIP and he argues for (a) and I agree.
>
> For the record, here is what Chris wrote:
>
> Just to be clear ? we?re not proposing changing the short name (cProduct)?
> Just the long name which is more descriptive? In which case I?m fairly
> happy with either of those. I think in the community (a) is closer to what
> people talk about. ?Product pool? is a fairly common-usage term isn?t it? I
> would perhaps shy away from saying ?harvest? because that makes people (me
> at least) think straight of crops, where here we mean wood harvest too.
>
>
> In terms of the flux names, we tried to detail these in our GMD paper (
> http://www.geosci-model-dev.net/9/2853/2016/ ) so people could see exactly
> what flux comes FROM and goes TO which pool. See our figure 6. Here we have
> two distinct fluxes INTO the product pool (fDeforestToProduct and
> fHarvesttoProduct). So again that would make me shy away from using
> ?harvest? to cover all of it. The flux back to the atmosphere is then
> ?fProductDecomp?, so the long name in (a) fits better.
>
> So to cut a long-story short! I?d vote for (a).
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 7:52 AM, <alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > CF-metadata mailing list
> > CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
> >
----- End forwarded message -----
Received on Fri Nov 25 2016 - 09:25:56 GMT
