Dear Jonathan and Daniel,
just to make an attempt to throw in my 5 cents here:
By definition, the term "aerosol" already means the system of the particles
together with their carrier gas which, in this context of the atmosphere, is
air. Thus, "aerosol_particles_in_air" includes the air twice. We may consider
simply to omit the "in_air", and would end up with:
mass_concentration_of_ammonium_in_dry_aerosol_particles
That way, we'd make clear that only the particle phase is meant, but leave the
option open for further additions such as "pm10", e.g.
mass_concentration_of_ammonium_in_pm10_dry_aerosol_particles.
Best regards,
Markus
Am 04.01.2018 um 17:44 schrieb Jonathan Gregory:
> Dear Daniel
>
> I see. So the new names would be of the form
> mass_concentration_of_ammonium_in_dry_aerosol_particles_in_air
> I think that might be liable to misunderstanding. It could mean the mass
> concentration of the ammonium within the aerosol particles, rather than
> within the air. Your earlier suggestion
> mass_concentration_of_particulate_ammonium_in_air
> does not have that drawback.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
>
> ----- Forwarded message from Daniel Neumann <daniel.neumann at io-warnemuende.de> -----
>
>> Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 22:46:55 +0100
>> From: Daniel Neumann <daniel.neumann at io-warnemuende.de>
>> To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Fwd: Re: Clarifying standard names for
>> 'mass_concentration_of_*_dry_aerosol_particles'
>> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
>> Thunderbird/52.5.0
>>
>> Dear Jonathan,
>>
>>> OK. If experts are unanimous in their conviction that the existing names will
>>> never be needed for the meaning that they appear to have, I agree that they
>>> should become aliases of the new names, which convey the correct meaning.
>>> I'm sure this change could be made.
>> Great.
>>
>>> Alison Pamment is in charge of the updates
>>> as you know and I expect she will consider as it soon as she has time. I think
>>> that a complete list of the new and old names would be useful - that may
>>> already be in one of your emails, perhaps.
>> I didn't include a full list yet. I will create one and send it
>> around the next days.
>>
>> After reading one of the past mailing list posts again and talking
>> to a former colleague: it might be better to just include an "_in_"
>> between "X" and "dry_aerosol_particles" in the new names (and maybe
>> remove aerosol) instead of creating names like
>> "...particulate_X_in_air". This first version with "_in_" is better
>> expandable, when particle size fractions like PM10 should be
>> considered in future (like
>> "..._X_in_PM10_dry_aerosol_particles_in_air").
>>
>> Thank you very much.
>>
>> Best,
>> Daniel
>>
>>
>>> Best wishes and thanks
>>>
>>> Jonathan
>>>
>>> ----- Forwarded message from Daniel Neumann <daniel.neumann at io-warnemuende.de> -----
>>>
>>>> Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 17:07:45 +0100
>>>> From: Daniel Neumann <daniel.neumann at io-warnemuende.de>
>>>> To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>>>> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Clarifying standard names for
>>>> 'mass_concentration_of_*_dry_aerosol_particles'
>>>> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
>>>> Thunderbird/52.5.0
>>>>
>>>> Dear Jonathan,
>>>>
>>>>> I understand. That's tricky, [...]
>>>> Yes :-) .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> We could define apple to mean orange in
>>>>> future, for the sake of the existing datasets,
>>>>> but only if we are certain that no-one will
>>>>> ever want to talk about apples.
>>>> I am not aware of any situation in which someone actually meant to
>>>> talk about apples. Markus Fiebig from the World Data Centre for
>>>> Aerosols wrote the same
>>>> (http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/2017/059588.html).
>>>> I talked to two former colleagues, who confirmed it as well.
>>>> Therefore, it is quite save to assume that nobody talks about
>>>> apples.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> We could just define and start using the new names,
>>>>> and be aware that the CMIP5 datasets used the
>>>>> wrong names (because the CF process somehow
>>>>> made a mistake), without defining aliases. Would
>>>>> that be acceptable?
>>>> With respect to my personal usage of the respective standard names I
>>>> am fine with just defining new standard names. I also see that it is
>>>> the simplest solution for the moment considering the work effort
>>>> needed to additionally define aliases.
>>>>
>>>> But, we might run into trouble (and cause confusion), if both
>>>> standard names - apple and orange - are used to describe oranges.
>>>> People, who used "apple" in the past, probably keep using "apple" to
>>>> describe oranges because they are not aware of the changes. People
>>>> who look up standard names for their new data sets might also end up
>>>> with "apple" for describing an orange if "apple" is not marked as
>>>> deprecated. Also people comparing data sets following the old and
>>>> the new conventions (e.g. CMIP5 and CMIP6) might not be aware of
>>>> this discussion. Hence, I would prefer to define aliases.
>>>>
>>>> Would it be feasible with respect to the required work, to define
>>>> aliases for all the ambiguous standard names? How could I support
>>>> this process? There seem to be 100 to 110 standard names involved:
>>>>
>>>> - atmosphere_mass_content_of_X_dry_aerosol_particles (15)
>>>> - tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_X_dry_aerosol_particles*
>>>> (78, maybe less)
>>>> - mass_concentration_of_X_dry_aerosol_particles_in_air (15)
>>>> - tendency_of_mass_concentration_of_X_dry_aerosol_particles_in_air (1)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Daniel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 03.01.2018 14:40, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
>>>>> Dear Daniel
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is it feasible to rename all affected standard names?
>>>>>>> It would be feasible (using aliases) but is it necessary? It seems to me that
>>>>>>> your question has identified that there should be a distinction between e.g.
>>>>>>> mass_concentration_of_particulate_X_in_air
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> mass_concentration_of_X_dry_aerosol_particles_in_air
>>>>>>> for X=ammonium etc. These are different quantities: the former refers to the
>>>>>>> mass of ammonium only, the latter to the dry mass of the aerosol of that type.
>>>>>>> That is, we need new names for CMIP6, not aliases.
>>>>>> Yes, there should be a distinction between both standard names.
>>>>>> However, the latter name has been used as synonym for the first name
>>>>>> up till now (e.g. in CMIP5 or in a data set I published recently).
>>>>>> Additionally, the latter name has no real application - at least I
>>>>>> am not aware of an application (neither for model nor for
>>>>>> measurement data). Therefore, it might be reasonable for backward
>>>>>> compatibility to use aliases.
>>>>> I understand. That's tricky, because we've established that the second name
>>>>> is a valid concept but not correct. When we use aliases, it's because we've
>>>>> decided on a clearer, more consistent or more precise formulation of the
>>>>> name, but in this case, it seemed that we called something an apple when
>>>>> it ought to have been called an orange. We could define apple to mean orange
>>>>> in future, for the sake of the existing datasets, but only if we are certain
>>>>> that no-one will ever want to talk about apples.
>>>>>
>>>>> We could just define and start using the new names, and be aware that the
>>>>> CMIP5 datasets used the wrong names (because the CF process somehow made a
>>>>> mistake), without defining aliases. Would that be acceptable?
>>>>>
>>>>> Best wishes
>>>>>
>>>>> Jonathan
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>> ----- 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
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
--
Dr. Markus Fiebig
Senior Scientist
Dept. Atmospheric and Climate Research (ATMOS)
Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU)
P.O. Box 100
N-2027 Kjeller
Norway
Tel.: +47 6389-8235
Fax : +47 6389-8050
e-mail: Markus.Fiebig at nilu.no
skype: markus.fiebig
P Please consider the environment before printing this email and attachments
Received on Fri Jan 05 2018 - 01:53:50 GMT
