Please note:
Some of these 20 standard names are part of a large renaming proposal
that I submitted some month ago. Because a lot of standard names are
affected, dealing with this issue was postponed. Depending on whether
the renaming proposal is expected to be accepted or not it might be
reasonable to create the new standard names in accordance with the
renamed or with the current name structure, respectively.
I attached a list of the standard names affected by the proposal (hope
the attachment is not removed) and uploaded it to our ftp server
(
ftp://ftp.io-warnemuende.de/pub/internal/cf_conventions/renaming_aerosol_species.xls
; available until until weekly server-cleanup this weekend).
Please have a look into the discussion
? "Clarifying standard names for
'mass_concentration_of_*_dry_aerosol_particles'"
for details on the suggested modifications and into the discussion
? "New standard names for atmospheric sea salt and for nitrogen deposition"
for details on the reason for the renaming proposal.
My opinion to this proposal:
I would favor construction (2) because it makes it clear from the
beginning that the atmospheric concentrations are reduced. Based on my
personal feeling as a non-native speaker, "depletion" has a similar
meaning than "degradation". Maybe that is wrong. I would favor a work
like "removal", which feels to be more general.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 16.05.2018 13:58, Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC wrote:
> There are 20 variables in the CMIP6 data request for a variety of dry and wet deposition rates. Many of these variables have been used in CMIP5 and earlier with standard names of the form: tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_dust_dry_aerosol_particles_due_to_dry_deposition.
>
>
> However, there is a conflict in the intended sign convention. The deposition rates should be positive when material is leaving the atmosphere, but the standard names that have been used should be positive when the atmospheric content is increasing. To resolve this we need a set of new standard names. The existing tendency names are:
>
> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_dust_dry_aerosol_particles_due_to_dry_deposition
> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_ammonia_due_to_dry_deposition
> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_ammonium_dry_aerosol_particles_due_to_dry_deposition
> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_particulate_organic_matter_dry_aerosol_particles_due_to_dry_deposition
> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_sulfur_dioxide_due_to_dry_deposition
> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_sulfate_dry_aerosol_particles_due_to_dry_deposition
> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_nitrogen_compounds_expressed_as_nitrogen_due_to_deposition
> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_dust_dry_aerosol_particles_due_to_wet_deposition
> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_ammonia_due_to_wet_deposition
> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_ammonium_dry_aerosol_particles_due_to_wet_deposition
> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_noy_expressed_as_nitrogen_due_to_wet_deposition
> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_sulfur_dioxide_due_to_wet_deposition
> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_sulfate_dry_aerosol_particles_due_to_wet_deposition
> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_particulate_organic_matter_dry_aerosol_particles_due_to_wet_deposition
> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_ozone_due_to_dry_deposition
> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_seasalt_dry_aerosol_particles_due_to_wet_deposition
> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_elemental_carbon_dry_aerosol_particles_due_to_wet_deposition
> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_seasalt_dry_aerosol_particles_due_to_dry_deposition
> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_noy_expressed_as_nitrogen_due_to_dry_deposition
> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_elemental_carbon_dry_aerosol_particles_due_to_dry_deposition
>
> Three options have been raised in the preliminary discussions:
> (1) Prefix each name with "minus_one_times_": this construction is already used for 3 names.
>
> (2) Replace "tendency_of_" with "depletion_rate_of_": this is a new construction, but is structurally close to what we have and makes the relation between variables very clear;
>
> (3) Replace "tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_" with "surface_downward_mass_flux_of_": this uses an existing construction already used in 8 standard names.
>
> What do others on the list think?
>
> regards,
> Martin
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Juckes, Martin (STFC,RAL,RALSP)
> Sent: 16 May 2018 08:14
> To: Michael Schulz; Taylor Karl
> Cc: larry.horowitz at noaa.gov; mark.webb at metoffice.gov.uk; Bodas-Salcedo, Alejandro; Pamment, Alison (STFC,RAL,RALSP)
> Subject: Re: Conflicting sign conventions in deposition rates
>
>
> Hello Michael, Karl,
>
>
> OK, it sounds as though we should keep the variables as they are, i.e. positive for deposition from the atmosphere, and fix the standard names.
>
>
> I don't think a positive attribute will solve this problem. It may be useful to add "positive=down", but it still leaves an inconsistency with the standard names which definitely should be used with positive "up". Standard names for variables with an opposite sign convention would not be synonyms: there are many examples of pairs of names which differ only in the sign convention, e.g.
>
> surface_upwelling_shortwave_flux_in_air -- minus_one_times_surface_upwelling_shortwave_flux_in_air (+ 2 other pairs like this);
>
> surface_downward_heat_flux_in_air -- surface_upward_heat_flux_in_air (+ 5 other pairs like this).
>
>
> We can construct standard names for minus the tendency of quantities in several ways, but it may be better to have that discussion on the CF discussions email list .. so I'll make a proposal there, also raising Karl's suggestion (depletion_rate_of_ ....),
>
>
> regards,
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Michael Schulz <michaels at met.no>
> Sent: 15 May 2018 19:46
> To: Juckes, Martin (STFC,RAL,RALSP)
> Cc: Taylor Karl; larry.horowitz at noaa.gov; mark.webb at metoffice.gov.uk; Bodas-Salcedo, Alejandro; Pamment, Alison (STFC,RAL,RALSP)
> Subject: Re: Conflicting sign conventions in deposition rates
>
> Hi,
>
> true - tendencies have not carefully chosen with a sign in mind.
>
> There is very long tradition that these variables are ?positive". So that should not be changed.
>
> The standard names are also used since quite some time.
>
> Adding a positive attribute would be my preferred solution.
>
> Otherwise ?surface_downward_mass_flux_of_? is fine for me as well. But that would introduce a synonym in the system, right?
>
> best wishes
> Michael
>
>
>
>
>
>> On 15 May 2018, at 20:13, Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC <martin.juckes at stfc.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Hello All,
>>
>>
>> Larry has pointed out a conflict between variable long names and standard names for a set of deposition rate variables, many of which were in the CMIP5 aero table, e.g. wetso4, "Wet Deposition Rate of SO4" with standard name tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_sulfate_expressed_as_sulfur_dry_aerosol_due_to_wet_deposition
>>
>>
>> A deposition rate would normally be positive when material is leaving the atmosphere, making the tendency of atmosphere mass content negative.
>>
>>
>> I will try to check the sign convention adopted by people submitting data for CMIP5, but I suspect that we should follow the sign convention implied by the long name .. but this would require new standard names for these variables. A full list of the variables is here: https://github.com/cmip6dr/CMIP6_DataRequest_VariableDefinitions/issues/328
>>
>>
>> For new standard names, we could either use the "minus_one_times_" construction, or replace "tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_" with "surface_downward_mass_flux_of_".
>>
>>
>> What do others think?
>>
>>
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
--
Daniel Neumann
Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research Warnemuende
Physical Oceanography and Instrumentation
Seestrasse 15
18119 Rostock
Germany
phone: +49-381-5197-287
fax: +49-381-5197-114 or 440
e-mail: daniel.neumann at io-warnemuende.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: renaming_aerosol_species.xls
Type: application/vnd.ms-excel
Size: 47104 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20180516/986d91e4/attachment.xls>
Received on Wed May 16 2018 - 07:06:17 BST
