[CF-metadata] Clarifying standard names for 'mass_concentration_of_*_dry_aerosol_particles'

From: Daniel Neumann <daniel.neumann>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:05:23 +0100

Dear Jonathan,

Thank you for your feedback. I hope some experts on atmospheric
chemistry will also comment on the proposal.

I just realized that I missed standard names starting with
"atmosphere_optical_thickness_due_to". These are 13 additional standard
names. But no additional special cases arise.

>> In the case of "atmosphere_mass_content_of_..." I added "_in_air" in
>> the end, which was not there before.
> Actually I don't think we should do this, because atmosphere_ and _in_air are
> alternatives in standard names, similarly ocean_ and _in_sea_water. The former
> denotes a property of the entire medium, the latter of the local fluid.
OK. Sounds reasonable.

>> (a) ..._dry_particulate_particulate_organic_matter...
>> Thus, we had "particulate" twice. We could also call it
>> (a) ..._dry_particulate_organic_matter...
>>
>> which would be less confusing to read. But it would break the rule.
> I'm in favour of removing the duplication; particulate_particulate would look
> like a mistake and cause confusion.
OK.

>> the renaming convention in the beginning yields a name structure like
>> "SIZE-CLASS_WHAT" with "SIZE-CLASS" in "particulate", "pm10",
>> "pm2p5", ... and with "WHAT" in "nitrate", "ammonium", ... . In this
>> situation, we don't have a "WHAT" because we mean "all compounds" or
>> "total". Should we leave it like that or should we insert something
>> for "WHAT"?
> Do you mean e.g. mass_concentration_of_ambient_pm10_in_air? I think that
> is fine. I understand pm10 to mean pm10 particles of any species.
Yes, standard names of this type.

>> that "dry pm10" + "water in pm10" = "ambient pm10". This would be
>> a consistent formulation.
>> But it is not intuitive ... .
> Do you mean e.g.
> mass_fraction_of_ambient_pm10_in_air
> mass_fraction_of_dry_pm10_in_air
> mass_fraction_of_water_in_pm10_in_air
> I'm not sure that I understand, but I don't think ambient = dry + water
> in this case, because the last one appears to mean the mass fraction of
> the ambient aerosol which is water. I have a vague recollection of discussing
> before what this was intended to mean. Do you want to describe the mass
> fraction of the air which is the water of the ambient aerosol?
Ah! I interpreted
"mass_fraction_of_water_in_ambient_aerosol_particles_in_air" wrongly. I
interpreted it as fraction of "water_in_ambient_aerosol_particles" in
"air". But actually, it means fraction of "water" in
"ambient_aerosol_particles_in_air"?
>> THE END
> Good night and sleep well.
Thanks :-)

Best,
Daniel
Received on Fri Mar 23 2018 - 03:05:23 GMT