Dear Paul, John, Jim,
Thanks for your replies. You say that mole fluxes are preferred by the ocean community. We have these for carbon dioxide, molecular oxygen and dimethyl sulfide. For the abiotic and natural analogues we agreed mass flux names. (All have now been published in the standard name table). Just to be absolutely clear - are you now saying that we need mole flux names for the analogues?
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: James Orr [mailto:James.Orr at lsce.ipsl.fr]
> Sent: 18 May 2017 07:47
> To: John Dunne - NOAA Federal
> Cc: Durack, Paul J.; Pamment, Alison (STFC,RAL,RALSP); cf-
> metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: Re: OMIP standard_name
> surface_downward_mass_flux_of_carbon_dioxide
>
> 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_e
> xpressed_as_carbon, kg m-2 s-11 (Omon, 163)
> > ? ? surface_downward_mass_flux_of_carbon_dioxide_abiotic_analogue_e
> xpressed_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 - 06:07:00 BST
