I think "product pool" is relatively commonly understood, but maybe I was
the one who added "anthropogenic" in an effort to increase clarity
(apparently unsuccessfully). I think your suggestion would be fine (with
caveat below). Chris objected to the term harvest for reasons stated in
his email. The objection I have would be to the term "food", which is
probably an objection with myself since I probably mistakenly introduced in
this discussion. It should be more general since food may imply
agricultural products produced for people, but agricultural products can be
used for food for people, feed for livestock, as well as biofuels.
So, I would suggest: wood_and_agricultural_products.
Dave
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk
> wrote:
> 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 -----
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161125/681591a9/attachment-0001.html>
Received on Fri Nov 25 2016 - 09:53:02 GMT
