[CF-metadata] Four standard names for the AerChemMIP data request

From: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 17:41:10 +0100

Dear Martin

> Proposed name: integral_wrt_time_of_stomatal_ozone_flux_excess

I appreciate that not all fluxes have their sign convention mentioned in the
name, but in the case of precipitation, for example, I think it's obvious -
that's not quite so with ozone_flux, I would say - on reflection, I guess
that plants don't ever produce ozone, so the flux should be into the stomata,
but although it can be clarified in the definition, as you say, I feel it would
be even better to choose a word in the standard name which indicates which way
the flux is going e.g. flux_into_stomata.

There are existing names containing mole_flux_of_SPECIES. This is one of those
so it might be good to follow that pattern too.

I see that pod0 has a threshold of zero. You're proposing something more
general, which could support any threshold, but is the threshold ever going
to be non-zero? If zero is the only possibility, it doesn't need to be
described as an excess.

> (3b) stomatal_ozone_flux_threshold [mol m-2 s-1]
>
> A standard name to be used on variable specifying a threshold value of stomatal ozone flux.

This quantity would be more generally useful if "threshold" was omitted. I'm
aware there is an air_temperature_threshold in the table, but I see no reason
why a quantity used as a threshold must have "threshold" in its name.

Best wishes and thanks

Jonathan
Received on Wed Apr 18 2018 - 10:41:10 BST