The ocean folks prefer the mole definition. There are atmos and land folks
that prefer the kg definition, but that shouldn't dictate the ocean sheet.
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 7:30 PM, Durack, Paul J. <durack1 at llnl.gov> wrote:
> Thanks Alison,
>
> I will defer to Jim and John on this one. I think consistency is the
> priority, along with making the data as useable to the ocean
> biogeochemistry community as possible. I?m not sure what their preference
> of units is ? they can reply.
>
> Cheers,
>
> P
>
> On 5/15/17, 5:39 AM, "alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk" <
> alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> Dear Paul,
>
> I've just had a look at the carbon dioxide surface flux names. Just to
> clarify, for your name surface_downward_mass_flux_of_carbon_dioxide, I
> suggested that we use the existing name surface_downward_mass_flux_of_
> carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon which has canonical units of kg m-2
> s-1. My understanding was that the existing name would be suitable for your
> needs. Is that correct or do you need a different quantity? As you say, we
> also have an existing name surface_downward_mole_flux_of_carbon_dioxide
> with units of mol m-2 s-1 so you should choose the standard name with the
> appropriate units for your quantity.
>
> For molecular oxygen and dimethyl sulphide we have introduced
> mole_flux names, however, we could also add mass_flux names with units of
> kg m-2 s-1 if that is more useful for OMIP.
>
> Please let me know if you need any additional names - these quantities
> are quite straight forward so I think we could just add them as necessary
> in the next update of the table.
>
> 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: Durack, Paul J. [mailto:durack1 at llnl.gov]
> Sent: 11 May 2017 20:49
> To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> Cc: Pamment, Alison (STFC,RAL,RALSP); John Dunne - NOAA Federal; James
> Orr
> Subject: OMIP standard_name surface_downward_mass_flux_of_
> carbon_dioxide
>
> In the large OMIP biogeochemistry request several carbon_dioxide names
> were requested. Of these surface_downward_mass_flux_of_carbon_dioxide was
> rejected, as surface_downward_mole_flux_of_carbon_dioxide already exists.
>
> This relates to variables contained in the Biogeochemistry sheet -
> https://goo.gl/Fyr6QW
>
> The rejection of this name has led to the situation where requested
> carbon_dioxide variables have different units:
>
> surface_downward_mole_flux_of_carbon_dioxide, mol m-2 s-1 (Omon, 162)
> surface_downward_mass_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_natural_analogue_expressed_as_carbon,
> kg m-2 s-11 (Omon, 163)
> surface_downward_mass_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_abiotic_analogue_expressed_as_carbon,
> kg m-2 s-11 (Omon, 164)
> surface_downward_mass_flux_of_carbon14_dioxide_abiotic_analogue_expressed_as_carbon,
> kg m-2 s-11 (Omon, 165)
> surface_downward_mass_flux_of_carbon13_dioxide_abiotic_
> analogue_expressed_as_carbon13, kg m-2 s-11 (Omon, 166)
> surface_downward_mole_flux_of_molecular_oxygen, mol m-2 s-1 (Omon,
> 167)
> surface_upward_mole_flux_of_dimethyl_sulfide, mol m-2 s-1 (Omon, 168)
>
> I wonder if this can be reconsidered so there is some consistency
> between the carbon_dioxide standard names and their units.
>
> Cheers,
>
> P
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20170517/ef671d71/attachment.html>
Received on Wed May 17 2017 - 19:07:09 BST
