Hi James,
In CMIP6 there is no reason that a surface variable can't be requested
independent of a 3-d variable. For example we could request CO2(x,y,z)
and CO2s(x,y,t) for 3-d and 2-d fields, respectively. The standard
names could be the same for these, but the CMIP6 variable names and
"long_names" would be different.
best regards,
Karl
On 3/27/17 7:22 AM, James Orr wrote:
> One reason for the added "surface_*" ocean biogeochemistry variables
> is that they allow us to reduce the data burden. That is, for many
> variables, monthly fields are needed at the surface but are not
> absolutely necessary at depth.
>
> Hence in the revised version of the OMIP-BGC description paper, most
> monthly 3-D fields have been demoted; they are no longer requested at
> Priority 1. Instead we prefer to keep the annual-mean 3-D fields as
> Priority 1 and add the corresponding monthly surface fields also at
> Priority 1.
>
> Thanks,
>
> James
>
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2017, Durack, Paul J. wrote:
>
>> This sounds great, thanks Alison!
>>
>> I?ve pulled John Dunne into this discussion (I think he?s a
>> subscriber) as he?s going to have the final say with the biogeo names
>> ? as a heads up, there was some discussion about whether the
>> ?surface_? names should be requested (in addition to the 3D fields),
>> it was a late edition prior to the names being submitted for
>> consideration. I have also cc?d Martin (who I?m sure is also a
>> subscriber) so he has a heads up that these changes are going to be
>> occurring soon (I will be pulling the final info back into the source
>> google sheets that Martin is currently using for much of the ocean
>> variable data request).
>>
>> I?ll keep an eye open and respond to any list queries quickly so we
>> can expedite the process for the April update.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> P
>>
>>
>> On 3/23/17, 12:05 PM, "Karl Taylor" <taylor13 at llnl.gov> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Jonathan,
>>
>> You raise some good points, and like you I'm sure I'd benefit from
>> one
>> of Alison's careful summaries before taking this discussion further.
>> I'm sure I'll be happy with whatever Alison recommends either way
>> on this.
>>
>> cheers,
>> Karl
>>
>>
>> On 3/23/17 9:59 AM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
>> > Dear Karl
>> >
>> > I'm sure this question has been discussed before. I agree it
>> seems surprising
>> > to have special names for surface quantities which also appear
>> in 3D. I think
>> > there are two reasons why this is the right thing to do in some
>> cases:
>> >
>> > * There is more than one way that "the" surface i.e. the bottom
>> of the
>> > atmosphere can be defined by a coordinate. It is height=0 m,
>> depth=0 m,
>> > over the sea it is quite near to altitude=0 m, it is
>> approximately 1000 hPa
>> > air pressure, and in all sorts of different atmosphere and ocean
>> model
>> > vertical coordinates it is described in different ways e.g.
>> sigma=1 in the
>> > atmosphere. Any of these might legitimately be used as the
>> vertical variable
>> > within the medium, so there are consequently lots of synonymous
>> ways to label
>> > the surface quantity. Generic software would have to know about
>> and look for
>> > all of them, and that's not really practical or convenient. To
>> label them in
>> > the standard name is much easier and clearer. Of course, if you
>> have a 3D
>> > variable which *includes* the surface as one of its levels,
>> that's fine -
>> > you can use the non-surface standard name with the coordinate
>> (whatever it
>> > is) indicating the surface. Also if the generic software can be
>> sure which
>> > vertical coordinate is being used, again the non-surface
>> standard name is fine,
>> > as for "surface air temperature", which is air_temperature with
>> a height
>> > coordinate near the surface.
>> >
>> > * There are also plenty of standard names for quantities
>> measured at other
>> > named levels, such as the toa, the tropopause, the sea floor and
>> the cloud
>> > top. These are also geophysically defined, like the surface, but
>> they can't
>> > be characterised by a coordinate value, so we have to label them
>> in the
>> > standard name. It would be inconsistent to treat the bottom of
>> the atmosphere
>> > differently.
>> >
>> > Having said that, I can't recall the discussion about the new
>> OMIP surface
>> > names, so I think we should wait for Alison's summary.
>> >
>> > Best wishes
>> >
>> > Jonathan
>> >
>> > ----- Forwarded message from Karl Taylor <taylor13 at llnl.gov> -----
>> >
>> >> Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 09:27:08 -0700
>> >> From: Karl Taylor <taylor13 at llnl.gov>
>> >> To: alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk, durack1 at llnl.gov
>> >> CC: j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk
>> >> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New standard names for OMIP
>> biogeochemistry and
>> >> chemistry
>> >> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0)
>> >> Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
>> >>
>> >> Hi all,
>> >>
>> >> I haven't heard the arguments on how to treat the "surface"
>> standard
>> >> names, but my thoughts are:
>> >>
>> >> 1) if the variable is found within a medium (e.g., ocean,
>> >> atmosphere, ice) and its value varies continuously as you move
>> away
>> >> from the surface, then there is no need for a distinct
>> >> standard_name.
>> >>
>> >> 2) If the variable is a flux between two media at the surface
>> (e.g.,
>> >> heat flux from atmos. to ocean) or is a property defined in
>> terms of
>> >> a difference between the two media (e.g., CO2 partial pressure
>> >> difference between sea water and air at the surface), then the
>> >> standard name should include "surface".
>> >>
>> >> I know we may have made some exceptions to this in the past, so
>> >> perhaps these should be considered flexible "rules" we normally
>> try
>> >> to follow (but not invariably).
>> >>
>> >> According to 1), all the "surface_mole_concentration" variables
>> >> could become simply "mole_concentration" and we would require a
>> >> scalar coordinate variable be defined as depth = 0. If a
>> >> concentration shows a sharp discontinuity at the surface, then
>> there
>> >> would be good reason, perhaps, to include "surface" in its
>> >> standard_name.
>> >>
>> >> Hope this is helpful,
>> >> Karl
>> >>
>> >> On 3/23/17 4:07 AM, alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk wrote:
>> >>> Hi Paul,
>> >>>
>> >>> Jonathan Gregory and Paul Griffies jointly submitted proposals
>> for
>> >>> the OMIP physics names last year so they are already in my
>> >>> workflow. I don?t think they attracted any comments on the
>> mailing
>> >>> list, so I guess it is up to me to work through them in my usual
>> >>> way. I am half way through writing a posting to the CF mailing
>> >>> list summarizing the status of all the remaining biogeochemistry
>> >>> names. I am accepting names where possible, getting others to a
>> >>> state where I just need you to give the ?OK? and they can be
>> >>> accepted, and for the rest I am pointing up any final unresolved
>> >>> issues so we can really focus the discussion on those. Further to
>> >>> my email yesterday, there are actually 61 ?surface? proposals, so
>> >>> clearing up that one question will allow about half the names to
>> >>> be agreed quite quickly. Please bear with me until I have posted
>> >>> my message to the list. I?ll then go through the physics names
>> and
>> >>> we can discuss those in a second thread.
>> >>>
>> >>> I?m also in the process of looking through some non-CMIP
>> >>> oceanography names for the NEMO model, and have just accepted a
>> >>> bunch of wave names, so this is a good time to get as many ocean
>> >>> related names into the table as possible.
>> >>>
>> >>> Best wishes,
>> >>>
>> >>> Alison
>> >>>
>> >>> ------
>> >>>
>> >>> Alison Pamment
>> >>> Tel: +44 1235 778065
>> >>>
>> >>> Centre for Environmental Data Analysis Email:
>> >>> alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk <mailto:J.A.Pamment at rl.ac.uk>
>> >>>
>> >>> STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
>> >>>
>> >>> R25, 2.22
>> >>>
>> >>> Harwell Campus, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
>> >>>
>> >>> *From:*Durack, Paul J. [mailto:durack1 at llnl.gov]
>> >>> *Sent:* 22 March 2017 22:58
>> >>> *To:* Pamment, Alison (STFC,RAL,RALSP)
>> >>> *Cc:* Taylor, Karl E.; j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk
>> >>> *Subject:* Re: [CF-metadata] New standard names for OMIP
>> >>> biogeochemistry and chemistry
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks Alison, this is great news!
>> >>>
>> >>> I originally submitted 107 standard names for consideration
>> >>> (mostly the biogeochemical and chemical domains). There are also
>> >>> some physics (OMIP-physical, and FAFMIP) related names that were
>> >>> also appended, so I?ll have to collect all these amendments and
>> >>> then propagate them back to the google sheets where the master
>> >>> list is contained. Martin can then read these revised inputs, and
>> >>> the OMIP/ocean variable request will be updated.
>> >>>
>> >>> What would be the best way for me to capture all the submitted
>> (so
>> >>> mine and the other separate ones) and then final standard names?
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks again for pushing on this!
>> >>>
>> >>> P
>> >>>
>> >>> *From: *"alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk
>> >>> <mailto:alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk>" <alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk
>> >>> <mailto:alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk>>
>> >>> *Date: *Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 4:37 AM
>> >>> *To: *"Taylor, Karl E." <taylor13 at llnl.gov
>> >>> <mailto:taylor13 at llnl.gov>>, "j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk
>> >>> <mailto:j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>" <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk
>> >>> <mailto:j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>>
>> >>> *Cc: *"Durack, Paul J." <durack1 at llnl.gov
>> <mailto:durack1 at llnl.gov>>
>> >>> *Subject: *RE: [CF-metadata] New standard names for OMIP
>> >>> biogeochemistry and chemistry
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi Karl,
>> >>>
>> >>> I think most of the OMIP names are in a pretty good state and
>> some
>> >>> are already published. There are probably more that can be
>> >>> published quite quickly, so I will go through the list again and
>> >>> accept as many as possible so they will be included in the next
>> >>> standard name table update, which will be on Monday next week
>> >>> (postponed from this week because of the Copernicus wave names).
>> >>> The update will appear on the CF website on Tuesday.
>> >>>
>> >>> There is one group of names where there is a question regarding
>> >>> whether we need new surface quantities or whether we could manage
>> >>> with existing names. I need to post about those separately as
>> I do
>> >>> feel the existing names should really be used, but some of the
>> >>> OMIP modellers wanted new names, and there wasn?t consensus in
>> the
>> >>> discussion. I think it?s a straight forward either/or choice, so
>> >>> it?s not something that should take weeks to discuss, but I feel
>> >>> it needs to be highlighted again in order to respect the CF
>> >>> process. It affects about 30 of the names from recollection.
>> >>>
>> >>> For some time now I?ve been doing monthly updates to the
>> table, so
>> >>> anything that isn?t included in the March update can go into the
>> >>> April one in another three or four weeks time. It is fine to go
>> >>> ahead and start using names once they have been accepted because
>> >>> they will then definitely be included in the next published
>> >>> version of the table. So from the OMIP point of view, the main
>> >>> thing is to make sure we can accept all the names. I think it?s
>> >>> perfectly realistic to say we can get to that point in the next
>> >>> two weeks, including reaching a decision on the
>> >>> surface/non-surface names.
>> >>>
>> >>> Best wishes,
>> >>>
>> >>> Alison
>> >>>
>> >>> ------
>> >>>
>> >>> Alison Pamment Tel: +44 1235 778065
>> >>>
>> >>> Centre for Environmental Data Analysis Email:
>> >>> alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk <mailto:J.A.Pamment at rl.ac.uk>
>> >>>
>> >>> STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
>> >>>
>> >>> R25, 2.22
>> >>>
>> >>> Harwell Campus, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
>> >>>
>> >>> *From:*Karl Taylor [mailto:taylor13 at llnl.gov]
>> >>> *Sent:* 21 March 2017 21:11
>> >>> *To:* Pamment, Alison (STFC,RAL,RALSP); Jonathan Gregory
>> >>> *Cc:* Durack, Paul J.
>> >>> *Subject:* Re: [CF-metadata] New standard names for OMIP
>> >>> biogeochemistry and chemistry
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi Alison and Jonathan,
>> >>>
>> >>> There appear to be 114 proposed standard names needing approval
>> >>> before the OMIP data request for CMIP6 can be completed. (For a
>> >>> list of these:
>> http://cfeditor.ceda.ac.uk/proposals/1?status=active&namefilter=&proposerfilter=&descfilter=&unitfilter=&yearfilter=&commentfilter=OMIP&filter+and+display=Filter
>> >>> and eliminate 2 variables referencing "geoMIP").
>> >>>
>> >>> There are at least 2 groups on the verge of running their models
>> >>> and at the same time saving the data needed for CMIP6. There is
>> >>> now a real danger that these groups will fail to include the OMIP
>> >>> request (or rely on the current version of it, which is missing
>> >>> some very important variables). It is therefore urgent that we
>> >>> now approve the OMIP-proposed standard names immediately.
>> >>>
>> >>> Please let me know how I can help make this happen. Can we set a
>> >>> realistic deadline? Can CMIP6 just assume that all these
>> standard
>> >>> names will eventually be approved and finalize our OMIP data
>> >>> request?
>> >>>
>> >>> thanks very much for all that you are doing.
>> >>>
>> >>> best regards,
>> >>> Karl
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 3/16/17 11:15 AM, Durack, Paul J. wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi Alison,
>> >>>
>> >>> Sorry to nag, but I was just hoping to get some guidance
>> from you
>> >>> about finalizing these OMIP standard names.
>> >>>
>> >>> If you can let me know what needs to be done, I?ll try and
>> >>> prioritize this!
>> >>>
>> >>> Cheers,
>> >>>
>> >>> P
>> >>>
>> >>> *From: *CF-metadata <cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu>
>> >>> <mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu> on behalf of "Durack,
>> >>> Paul J." <durack1 at llnl.gov> <mailto:durack1 at llnl.gov>
>> >>> *Date: *Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 12:36 PM
>> >>> *To: *Alison Pamment <alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk>
>> >>> <mailto:alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk>
>> >>> *Cc: *"cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu"
>> <mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
>> >>> <cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu> <mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>,
>> >>> Stephen Griffies <stephen.griffies at noaa.gov>
>> >>> <mailto:stephen.griffies at noaa.gov>,
>> "martin.juckes at stfc.ac.uk"
>> >>> <mailto:martin.juckes at stfc.ac.uk> <martin.juckes at stfc.ac.uk>
>> >>> <mailto:martin.juckes at stfc.ac.uk>, "gokhan at ucar.edu"
>> >>> <mailto:gokhan at ucar.edu> <gokhan at ucar.edu>
>> >>> <mailto:gokhan at ucar.edu>, "Taylor, Karl E."
>> <taylor13 at llnl.gov>
>> >>> <mailto:taylor13 at llnl.gov>
>> >>> *Subject: *Re: [CF-metadata] New standard names for OMIP
>> >>> biogeochemistry and chemistry
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi Alison,
>> >>>
>> >>> I just checked the query of the OMIP standard name request at
>> >>>
>> http://cfeditor.ceda.ac.uk/proposals/1?status=all&commentfilter=OMIP
>> >>> and it seems we still have some items under discussion..
>> How can
>> >>> we kick these along to get them finalized so I can get the
>> >>> information updated so Martin can finalize the OMIP/Ocean
>> data
>> >>> request?
>> >>>
>> >>> Cheers,
>> >>>
>> >>> P
>> >>>
>> >>> *From: *John Dunne - NOAA Federal <john.dunne at noaa.gov>
>> >>> <mailto:john.dunne at noaa.gov>
>> >>> *Date: *Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 9:59 AM
>> >>> *To: *Alison Pamment <alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk>
>> >>> <mailto:alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk>
>> >>> *Cc: *"cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu"
>> <mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
>> >>> <cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu> <mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>,
>> >>> "Durack, Paul J." <durack1 at llnl.gov>
>> <mailto:durack1 at llnl.gov>,
>> >>> Stephen Griffies <stephen.griffies at noaa.gov>
>> >>> <mailto:stephen.griffies at noaa.gov>, "gokhan at ucar.edu"
>> >>> <mailto:gokhan at ucar.edu> <gokhan at ucar.edu>
>> >>> <mailto:gokhan at ucar.edu>, James Orr <James.Orr at lsce.ipsl.fr>
>> >>> <mailto:James.Orr at lsce.ipsl.fr>
>> >>> *Subject: *Re: [CF-metadata] New standard names for OMIP
>> >>> biogeochemistry and chemistry
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi Alison,
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks for following up! Some thoughts below...
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:00 PM, <alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk
>> >>> <mailto: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&namefilter=&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/build/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_carbonate_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
>> >>> <mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu>] On Behalf Of
>> >>> > alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk
>> <mailto:alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk>
>> >>> > Sent: 19 October 2016 19:16
>> >>> > To: durack1 at llnl.gov <mailto:durack1 at llnl.gov>;
>> >>> cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>> <mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
>> >>> > Cc: stephen.griffies at noaa.gov
>> >>> <mailto:stephen.griffies at noaa.gov>; gokhan at ucar.edu
>> >>> <mailto: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&namefilter=&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
>> >>> <tel:%2B44%201235%20778065>
>> >>> Centre for Environmental Data Analysis Email:
>> >>> alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk
>> <mailto:alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk>
>> >>> STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
>> >>> R25, 2.22
>> >>> Harwell Campus, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
>> >>>
>> > ----- 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CF-metadata mailing list
>> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
Received on Tue Mar 28 2017 - 14:35:54 BST
