Good point. Yes, we would like to have all the analogue names in mole
units instead of mass units.
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 8:07 AM, <alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk> wrote:
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20170518/bc9982ab/attachment.html>
Received on Thu May 18 2017 - 07:42:30 BST
