Paul and Allison,
I agree with John that the mole fluxes are prefered for ocean biogeochemistry.
Jim
On Wed, 17 May 2017, John Dunne - NOAA Federal wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
--
LSCE/IPSL, Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement
CEA-CNRS-UVSQ
LSCE/IPSL, CEA Saclay http://www.ipsl.jussieu.fr/~jomce
Bat. 712 - Orme mailto: James.Orr at lsce.ipsl.fr
Point courrier 132
F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex Phone: (33) (0)1 69 08 39 73
FRANCE Fax: (33) (0)1 69 08 30 73
Received on Thu May 18 2017 - 00:46:59 BST
