Hello Karl,
yes, I was having some similar thoughts after your comments about enthalpy. The issue is the contribution to the heat budget of a water body (sea water or snow pack) of an influx of water which has a different temperature, a different heat capacity and perhaps different phase and composition. The convoluted form of the convoluted for of temperature_flux_due_to_rainfall_expressed_as_heat_flux_into_sea_water comes, I think, from the fact that the heat flux itself is of less interest than the combined effect of adding both heat and mass to the sea/snow. Hence, I have changed my mind and no longer believe that "heat_flux_...." is a good idea here. I still agree with your initial reaction that there are problems with the "temperature_flux_..." formulation.
There are 3 standard names using "temperature_flux_due_to....", all in units of W m-2. They all state the standard interpretation of "due_to_process", i.e. the term should reflect a contribution to the general quantity that is named before "due_to_..". Here that general quantity is "temperature_flux", which not a defined CF quantity. I've searched for "temperature flux" online, and found it used by Stommel in a PNAS paper (1980, vol 77, p. 2377), so it presumably has a specific meaning to oceanographers. Stommel's temperature flux, however, has units of degC m3 s-1, not W m-2.
Another name which I thought might be relevant here is "tendency_of_sea_water_conservative_temperature_expressed_as_heat_content" (also W m-2). Sea water conservative temperature can be regarded as proportional to the heat per unit mass, according to the term definition, so it is the relevant quantity for sea water. But then I realised that I do not understand how the units for this term relate to the definition ... so I have just started another thread on that topic (with the standard name in the subject line).
I will send a query to the land snow people tomorrow to try to get more information about the intended definition of this term for the surface snow heat budget,
regards,
Martin
________________________________
From: Karl Taylor <taylor13 at llnl.gov>
Sent: 09 June 2018 20:34
To: Juckes, Martin (STFC,RAL,RALSP); Pamment, Alison (STFC,RAL,RALSP); cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu; j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Final 17 terms for CMIP6 LS3MIP.
Just realized if it's rain (at a temperature greater than 0 C) falling
on snow/ice, the effect is to either to melt some snow (not change its
temperature) and that even if the rain is at the freezing point but not
frozen and if the surface is at the freezing point (and frozen), there
might be some "heat flux" of interest. This would mean "added at a
different temperature" may not be quite the right way to describe
things. Again not sure of this.
best regards,
Karl
On 6/9/18 8:23 AM, Karl Taylor wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> Regarding
>
> heat_flux_into_snow_and_ice_on_land_due_to_rainfall
>
> Does this leave some ambiguity? I'm not positive about this, but
> won't a mass of anything falling onto the surface deposit both mass
> and energy (i.e., heat)? Do we care about the enthalpy added in this
> way if it has no impact on the temperature of the surface? Or are we
> only interested in the case that the temperature of the falling rain
> is different from the temperature of the surface (in which case it
> will change the surface temperature)? I assumed the latter, and
> that's what I was trying to get at with
> "added_at_a_different_temperature":
>
> "heat_flux_into_snow_and_ice_on_land_due_to_rainfall_added_at_a_different_temperature"?
>
>
> (I could be totally wrong about this.)
>
> best regards,
> Karl
>
> On 6/8/18 11:47 PM, Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC wrote:
>> Dear Karl, Jonathan,
>>
>>
>> thank you, these are very relevant comments. I'm afraid I still can't
>> find Jonathan's comments from Tuesday --- the email doesn't appear
>> with the other mails of the thread in the list archives where I
>> usually go to trace exchanges back.
>>
>>
>> Jonathan makes a good point about the usage of "assuming": I
>> introduced the term into the thread, copying it from the existing
>> help text for "soil_albedo", and Alison referred to terms which use
>> "assuming" in the standard name. As Jonathan says, there is a very
>> specific interpretation when "assuming" is used in a standard name,
>> so perhaps the soil_albedo help text should be modified to avoid
>> confusion. "soil_albedo" could, I think, be replaced by surface
>> albedo with area type bare_soil.
>>
>>
>> Responding to Karl's comments:
>>
>>
>> (1) I had missed the fact that the CMIP5 evaporation variable, evs,
>> adopted the broadest possible interpretation of the term. I agree
>> that we should preserve this interpretation and that the proposed new
>> variable for evapotranspiration is redundant. The fact that evs
>> includes sublimation and transpiration is made clear in the CMIP5
>> variable tables, but the standard name water_evaporation_flux does
>> not make any reference to the precise meaning of evaporation. The AMS
>> glossary says that "Evaporation is usually restricted in use to the
>> change of water from liquid to gas": this does not rule out the
>> possibility of using it in the broader sense, but it does suggest
>> that there is liable to be confusion if we use the word without
>> further clarification. I suggest introducing
>> water_evapotranspiration_flux or water_total_evaporation_flux and
>> demoting water_evaporation_flux to an alias, and also adding some
>> explanatory text "Evapotranspiration/Total evaporation refers to all
>> water vapor fluxe
> s
>> from the surface: liquid evaporation, sublimation and transpiration".
>>
>>
>> (2)
>>
>> water_evaporation_flux_from_canopy_due_to_interception (kg m-2 s-1)
>>
>> This may be obscure, and you are right to raise concerns about the
>> precise meaning of "canopy" as opposed to vegetation. There are a
>> number of terms related to water held on the "canopy". My
>> understanding is that the terminology comes from analysis of
>> precipitation which lands on trees and is held away from the surface.
>> The models are beginning to differentiate between water which falls
>> directly on the surface and water held in the tree canopy.
>>
>> We have an existing standard name canopy_height with the descriptive
>> text: '"Canopy" means the plant or vegetation canopy', and this name
>> is used with a CMIP6 variable for vegetation height and also for a
>> specific variable for vegetation height in natural grasslands (with
>> the area type natural_grasses). To my mind this usage (i.e. referring
>> to the grass "canopy"), but it follows the CMIP5 usage in variables
>> such as prveg (Precipitation onto Canopy:
>> precipitation_flux_onto_canopy). It is also consistent with AMS,
>> which considers canopy to be "The vegetative covering over a
>> surface", but also references an alternative usage as the upper
>> portion of the vegetation.
>>
>> There are 11 CF standard names referring to the canopy, including
>> water_evaporation_flux_from_canopy. Following the discussion of
>> "water_evaporation_flux", the term
>> "water_evaporation_flux_from_canopy" should include transpiration as
>> well as evaporation/sublimation from any water sitting on the
>> vegetation. The water sitting on the vegetation is referred to as
>> intercepted, and it is the evaporation/sublimation of this
>> intercepted water that is of interest here. LS3MIP will also be using
>> the CMIP5 variable "ec" which gives the transpiration flux. There is
>> an existing term canopy_water_amount to refer to this intercepted
>> water, so perhaps it would be better to say:
>> water_evaporation_flux_from_canopy_water.
>>
>> For the term canopy_water_amount, I think there is a real distinction
>> between canopy and vegetation: canopy is referring to the above
>> ground portion of the vegetation. The descriptive text could be
>> clarified, but I think there is a case for retaining the term.
>>
>> (3) These are good points. I am also unfamiliar with the history of
>> the term
>> temperature_flux_due_to_rainfall_expressed_as_heat_flux_into_sea_water
>> --- the term we want here appears to be a close relative of that
>> term, but I'm happy to consider other formulation.
>>
>> Because this is a heat flux across a surface I would prefer the form
>> "heat_flux_into_..." rather than
>> "tendency_of_..._temperature_..._due_to_...", because the boundary
>> flux is not a term in a temperature tendency equation.
>>
>> I have responded to comments from Alison on the best way to refer to
>> the body of snow and ice on land which is the recipient of the heat
>> here -- my last suggestion was "snow_and_ice_on_land", but that
>> discussion is still open. Here, we could use
>> "heat_flux_into_snow_and_ice_on_land_due_to_rainfall".
>>
>> (4) On reflection it may be clearer to say
>> surface_upward_latent_heat_flux_due_to_sublimation, where it is clear
>> that sublimation is a process and latent heat flux is a standard term.
>>
>> regards,
>> Martin
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Karl Taylor <taylor13 at llnl.gov>
>> Sent: 08 June 2018 17:24
>> To: Pamment, Alison (STFC,RAL,RALSP); Juckes, Martin
>> (STFC,RAL,RALSP); cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Final 17 terms for CMIP6 LS3MIP.
>>
>> Dear Alison, Martin, and Jonathan,
>>
>> I just spent the last hour going over Alison's email and composed the
>> following comments before seeing Martin's response and not being
>> aware of Jonathan's comments on Tuesday. I think most of my comments
>> are still relevant.
>>
>> best regards,
>> Karl
>>
>>
>> Hi Alison and Martin,
>>
>>
>>
>> After a quick look through these very thorough notes, I noticed:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1) "evaporation": In CMIP5 and in general up until now
>>
>> a) "water_evaporation_flux" has included
>> "transpiration" and included water_sublimation_flux from all parts of
>> the surface (soil and vegetation).
>>
>> b) "water_sublimation_flux" was restricted to water
>> in solid form on the surface (or surface vegetation) that passed into
>> the gaseous phase and entered the atmosphere.
>>
>> c) we had no name for the "liquid-only" portion of
>> water_evaporation_flux
>>
>> d) we had no name for the "transpiration-only"
>> portion of water_evaporation_flux.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think we want to preserve these traditional definitions of
>> water_evaporation_flux and water_sublimation_flux when defining
>> components of them (e.g., portions originating from different parts
>> of the surface and vegetation, or restricted to certain surface water
>> phases)
>>
>>
>>
>> The main thing is that the water_evaporation_flux should be *all* the
>> water vapor leaving the surface (and surface vegetatioin) and
>> entering the atmosphere and water_sublimation_flux should be *all*
>> the water vapor directly entering the atmosphere from solid water on
>> the surface.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you want to introduce "evapotranspiration_flux", you would have to
>> make "water_evaporation_flux" an alias. It would be o.k. to define
>> "transpiration_flux" as a new name identifying the portion of
>> "water_evaporation" (i.e., "evapotranspiration") that is due to
>> transpiration. I think it would be a mistake to change the meaning
>> of water_evaporation_flux so that it excludes the portion due to
>> transpiration. water_evaporation_flux has been in use too long with
>> the original meaning. "evapotranspiration" is *not* a new concept in
>> CF, it is a suggested new name for "evaporation". My vote would be
>> *not* to replace "evaporation" with "evapotranspiration"; the
>> atmosphere doesn't care that a portion of the evaporating water
>> traveled through the plant roots and exited through stomata in the
>> leaves; it still ends up in the atmosphere as vapor.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2) water_evaporation_flux_from_canopy_due_to_interception (kg m-2 s-1)
>>
>> a) This seems quite obscure. "interception of
>> what?" [snow fall, yes?] Would
>> water_evaporation_flux_from_canopy_snow work?
>>
>> b) How else does snow accumulate on the canopy
>> except by falling as snow?
>>
>> c) It appears that "evaporation" here must surely
>> include sublimation (as discussed in 1 above), which I think is good.
>>
>> d) Is there a precise definition of canopy? How does
>> it differ from "vegetation"? A definition I found says "The canopy
>> refers to the highest layer of vegetation in a forest or woodland,
>> made up of the crowns of its tallest trees." I would be surprised if
>> modelers are using the term in this sense. If "canopy" is restricted
>> to "trees" (or tallest trees), how are they defined since some shrubs
>> seem to have similar characteristics as trees. Why would modelers
>> want to isolate water evaporation from the canopy, rather than
>> considering water evaporation from all the vegetation? If "canopy"
>> includes all vegetation that "hides" the surface soil from above,
>> wouldn't all plants do that? If so, why not just say "vegetation"
>> (meaning surface vegetation) and avoid use of "canopy" in standard
>> names.
>>
>> e) In general the use of "canopy", I think, should
>> be avoided unless a precise definition can be provided and either
>> models or measurements actually keep track of what goes on there
>> specifically. If "canopy" means "surface vegetation", I think the
>> term "vegetation" would be much less misleading than the term "canopy".
>>
>>
>>
>> 3) I must have missed the discussion about this, but does
>> temperature_flux_due_to_rainfall_expressed_as_heat_flux_into_sea_water
>>
>> make sense? Our use of flux as a short-hand for "flux density" (as
>> formally used in physics) wouldn't seem to apply to "temperature",
>> which is a property of a material not something that can flow from
>> one place to another. Does it mean
>> "heat_flux_into_sea_water_due_to_rainfall_added_at_a_different_temperature"?
>> Or is it the "tendancy_of_sea_water_temperature_due_to_rainfall"? Or
>> something else?
>>
>>
>>
>> 4) I've never seen the term "sublimation heat flux" used, although I
>> guess its meaning is clear enough. Does anyone know of a different
>> term meaning "heat flux from the surface to the atmosphere due to
>> sublimation of surface ice, frost, and snow?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for all the great progress.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Karl
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/8/18 7:21 AM, Alison Pamment - UKRI STFC wrote:
>>
>> Dear Martin,
>>
>> Many thanks for making these proposals. I have comments and questions
>> about some of them. In particular, these proposals have made me think
>> that we can make better use of area types than we currently do for
>> surface properties and fluxes such as albedo (1.2), water evaporation
>> (2.2) and snowpack heat flux (3.1) - I think we should take a common
>> approach to these.
>>
>> I have accepted a few of the names and there are quite a number more
>> that are close to acceptance. As with the change_over_time names we
>> need to be clear which areas are included and excluded for all names
>> and also which phases of water are included. Please have a look at my
>> comments and let me know what you think.
>>
>>
>>
>> Albedo [2]
>>
>> We already have names such as "soil_albedo" (Soil albedo is the
>> albedo of the soil surface assuming no snow). Two new terms are
>> requested, for canopy and snow
>> 1.1 albc Canopy Albedo
>> canopy_albedo (1)
>> "Canopy" means the plant or vegetation canopy. Albedo is the ratio of
>> outgoing to incoming shortwave irradiance.
>>
>>
>> The name and units are fine. Does the canopy albedo assume no snow,
>> or does it include snow covered areas of the canopy?
>>
>> This name is still under discussion. Please see also my related
>> comments on 1.2.
>>
>>
>>
>> 1.2 albsn Snow and Ice Albedo [1]
>> Albedo of snow and ice covered surface.
>> snow_and_ice_albedo
>> Snow and ice albedo.
>> -- OR --
>> This could be handled with existing name surface_albedo and a new
>> area type "snow_or_ice". [Note that "landice" appears to exclude ice
>> on lakes, which may be a significant component of this albedo]
>>
>>
>> I'm beginning to think that we should have just one surface_albedo
>> name which would have several aliases
>> (surface_albedo_assuming_deep_snow, surface_albedo_assuming_no_snow,
>> sea_ice_albedo) and add some more area types. For your proposed
>> quantity we'd need an area type of something like land_snow_or_ice as
>> you suggest; we could add deep_snow and no_snow, and sea_ice already
>> exists. This would be similar to the way in which we deprecated
>> several surface_temperature_where_X names and made them all aliases
>> of surface_temperature.
>>
>> The surface_temperature definition says 'The surface called "surface"
>> means the lower boundary of the atmosphere. The surface temperature
>> is the temperature at the interface, not the bulk temperature of the
>> medium above or below. Unless indicated in the cell_methods
>> attribute, a quantity is assumed to apply to the whole area of each
>> horizontal grid box. Previously, the qualifier where_type was used to
>> specify that the quantity applies only to the part of the grid box of
>> the named type. Names containing the where_type qualifier are
>> deprecated and newly created data should use the cell_methods
>> attribute to indicate the horizontal area to which the quantity
>> applies.' If we take a similar approach with the albedo names we
>> should of course add the same recommendation to use cell_methods to
>> indicate the horizontal area. We would then be able to have the
>> albedo of any surface that is described in the area_type table
>> without the need to add further standard names. Do others think that
>> woul
> d
>> be a useful step?
>>
>> If we do go down the area_type route, I think we'd still need
>> canopy_albedo as a separate name because it's clearly not the same as
>> the surface, but that name could also optionally be combined with an
>> area_type of no_snow if only the albedo of snow free canopy where
>> required.
>>
>> Regardless of whether we decide to introduce a new standard name or a
>> new area type for the proposed quantity, we need a clear definition
>> of which ice/snow areas are included and excluded. I wonder if
>> excluding lake_ice from our definition of land_ice is a deliberate
>> omission or an oversight? Can we check this point with the ISMIP6
>> group? Even if lake_ice is not included in land_ice, we do have an
>> existing area_type lake_ice_or_sea_ice and we could introduce
>> lake_ice as a distinct area_type in its own right. I think we'd also
>> need a definition for land_snow, presumably something like ' "Land
>> snow' means any snow lying on the land surface, land ice or lake ice.'
>>
>> If we use surface_albedo, then the area type for this quantity would
>> need to be land_ice_and_lake_ice_or_land_snow or
>> land_ice_or_land_snow, depending on whether lake_ice should be
>> included in land_ice. If we introduce a new standard name the
>> information would have to go in there:
>> surface_albedo_assuming_land_ice_and_lake_ice_or_land_snow. Both
>> approaches lead to quite a long string for the surface type, but I
>> think that's the only way to be clear about the quantity that is
>> being represented. We've used similar long strings for C4MIP names
>> such as
>> surface_upward_mass_flux_of_nitrous_oxide_expressed_as_nitrogen_out_of_vegetation_and_litter_and_soil.
>>
>> This name is still under discussion.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. Evaporation and transpiration fluxes [3] Variations on the theme
>> of the existing water_evaporation_flux term.
>> 2.1 ec Interception evaporation [kg m-2 s-1]
>>
>> water_evaporation_flux_from_canopy_due_to_intersection
>> "Canopy interception is the precipitation, including snow, that is
>> intercepted by the canopy of a tree and then evaporates from the
>> leaves",
>> expanding on the existing name water_evaporation_flux_from_canopy
>>
>>
>> I assume there's a typo in the proposed name and it should say
>> 'interception'. Thank you for providing a definition for
>> interception. Adding text from our usual definitions I think we would
>> end up with:
>> water_evaporation_flux_from_canopy_due_to_interception (kg m-2 s-1)
>> ' "Water" means water in all phases. Evaporation is the conversion of
>> liquid or solid into vapor. (The conversion of solid alone into vapor
>> is called "sublimation".) In accordance with common usage in
>> geophysical disciplines, "flux" implies per unit area, called "flux
>> density" in physics. The specification of a physical process by the
>> phrase "due_to_" process means that the quantity named is a single
>> term in a sum of terms which together compose the general quantity
>> named by omitting the phrase. "Canopy" means the plant or vegetation
>> canopy. "Canopy interception" is the precipitation, including snow,
>> that is intercepted by the canopy of a tree and then evaporates from
>> the leaves.'
>>
>> Okay?
>>
>>
>>
>> 2.2 eow Open Water Evaporation [kg m-2 s-1]
>>
>> A new term "water_evaporation_flux_from_open_water" would work here,
>> but it might make more sense to define an area type for open water
>> and use the existing standard name "water_evaporation_flux".
>>
>>
>> I agree that using the existing name water_evaporation_flux is a good
>> choice, although perhaps we should make that one into an alias of
>> water_evaporation_flux_from_surface which is a more accurate
>> representation of the quantity. We could certainly introduce a new
>> area_type, but we'd need a definition of 'open_water'. Does it mean
>> 'ice_free_water'? We already have ice_free_land and ice_free_sea.
>> Does the open water in this case include the sea or does it mean only
>> land based water? Does it include rivers, lakes, etc.?
>>
>> This name is still under discussion.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2.3 et Total Evapotranspiration [kg m-2 s-1]
>> "Evapotranspiration" is a new concept to the CF standard names, but
>> appears to be clearly defined.
>> evapotranspiration_flux (kg m-2 s-1)
>> "Evapotranspiration refers to the flux of water into the atmosphere
>> from a combination of transpiration by plants and evaporation from
>> soil and
>> other land surfaces."
>>
>>
>> The name and units are fine. Thank you for providing a definition for
>> evapotranspiration. I think the full definition should read as follows:
>> ' "Evapotranspiration" means the flux of water into the atmosphere
>> from a combination of transpiration by plants and evaporation from
>> soil and other land surfaces. Water means water in all phases.
>> Evaporation is the conversion of liquid or solid into vapor. (The
>> conversion of solid alone into vapor is called "sublimation").
>> Transpiration is the process by which water is carried from the roots
>> of plants and evaporates from the stomata. In accordance with common
>> usage in geophysical disciplines, "flux" implies per unit area,
>> called "flux density" in physics.'
>>
>> Okay?
>>
>> One question: does 'other land surfaces' specifically mean dry land,
>> i.e. does it exclude the open water of proposal 2.2?
>>
>> This name is still under discussion.
>>
>>
>>
>> 3. Heat fluxes [2]
>> 3.1 hfrs Heat transferred to snowpack by rainfall [W m-2]
>> A variation of
>> "temperature_flux_due_to_rainfall_expressed_as_heat_flux_into_sea_water".
>>
>> temperature_flux_due_to_rainfall_expressed_as_heat_flux_into_snow_and_ice
>> (W m-2)
>>
>>
>> The name itself does follow existing patterns and the units are
>> correct for a heat flux. The existing
>> temperature_flux_due_to_rainfall_expressed_as_heat_flux_into_sea_water
>> name is defined as follows:
>> 'The quantity with standard name
>> temperature_flux_due_to_rainfall_expressed_as_heat_flux_into_sea_water
>> is the heat energy carried by rainfall entering the sea at the sea
>> surface. It is calculated relative to the heat that would be carried
>> by rainfall entering the sea at zero degrees Celsius. It is
>> calculated as the product QrainCpTrain, where Qrain is the mass flux
>> of rainfall entering the sea (kg m-2 s-1), Cp is the specific heat
>> capacity of water and Train is the temperature in degrees Celsius of
>> the rain water entering the sea surface. In accordance with common
>> usage in geophysical disciplines, "flux" implies per unit area,
>> called "flux density" in physics. The specification of a physical
>> process by the phrase due_to_process means that the quantity named is
>> a single term in a sum of terms which together compose the general
>> quantity named by omitting the phrase.'
>>
>> Assuming that the proposed name would be defined similarly, it seems
>> to me that this is another case where we could use area types. The
>> energy being carried by the rainfall is essentially a surface flux -
>> it depends on where the rain originated and the properties of the air
>> it has fallen through, rather than the type of surface it is falling
>> onto. I suggest we could make the existing name into an alias of
>> temperature_flux_due_to_rainfall_expressed_as_heat_flux. We could
>> then use this for both the original and proposed quantities if an
>> appropriate area type is supplied. We already have an area type of
>> sea. Is the proposed quantity like the albedo in proposal 1.2, i.e.
>> does it mean land_ice_and_lake_ice_or_land_snow?
>>
>> This name is still under discussion.
>>
>>
>>
>> 3.2 hfsbl Energy of sublimation [W m-2]
>> Variation of: surface_upward_latent_heat_flux The definitions of
>> latent heat flux state that the latent heat flux includes sublimation
>> heat flux, so it makes sense to use the same pattern:
>> surface_upward_sublimation_heat_flux (W m-2)
>>
>>
>> The name and units are fine and the definition can be constructed
>> from existing text:
>> 'The surface called "surface" means the lower boundary of the
>> atmosphere. "Upward" indicates a vector component which is positive
>> when directed upward (negative downward). Sublimation is the
>> conversion of solid into vapor. In accordance with common usage in
>> geophysical disciplines, "flux" implies per unit area, called "flux
>> density" in physics.'
>>
>> This name is accepted for publication in the standard name table and
>> will be added in the June update.
>>
>>
>>
>> 4. Nudging increments [2]
>> There are no terms referring to "nudging increments" in the CF
>> convention, but there are a number referring to "flux correction".
>> The following help text is proposed for nudging increments: "A
>> nudging increment refers to an amount > added to parts of the model
>> system. nudging_increment_in_X refers to an increment in quantity X
>> over a time period which should be defined in the bounds of the time
>> coordinate." These should be encoded with cell_methods "time: > sum"
>> and a bounds variable to give the time over which nudging is summed.
>> The convention requires that, with this construction, the time
>> periods should be contiguous.
>>
>> 4.1 nudgincsm Nudging Increment of Water in Soil Moisture [kg m-2]
>> nudging_increment_in_mass_content_of_water_in_soil
>>
>>
>> Thank you for providing a definition for 'nudging increment'. I think
>> this is very much modelling jargon, although so is 'flux correction'
>> I suppose. I can't think of a better phrase, so don't have any real
>> objection to including this name as it is. The rest of the definition
>> can be constructed from existing text:
>> 'A "nudging increment" refers to an amount added to parts of a model
>> system. The phrase "nudging_increment_in_X" refers to an increment in
>> quantity X over a time period which should be defined in the bounds
>> of the time coordinate. "Content" indicates a quantity per unit area.
>> "Water" means water in all phases. The mass content of water in soil
>> refers to the vertical integral from the surface down to the bottom
>> of the soil model. The "soil content" of a quantity refers to the
>> vertical integral from the surface down to the bottom of the soil
>> model. For the content between specified levels in the soil, standard
>> names including "content_of_soil_layer" are used.'
>>
>> This name is accepted for publication in the standard name table and
>> will be added in the June update.
>>
>>
>>
>> 4.2 nudgincswe Nudging Increment of Water in Snow [kg m-2]
>> nudging_increment_in_surface_snow_and_ice_amount
>>
>>
>> The definition would be as follows:
>> 'A "nudging increment" refers to an amount added to parts of a model
>> system. The phrase "nudging_increment_in_X" refers to an increment in
>> quantity X over a time period which should be defined in the bounds
>> of the time coordinate. The surface called "surface" means the lower
>> boundary of the atmosphere. "Amount" means mass per unit area.'
>>
>> This seems okay, but I'm wondering if once again this quantity
>> refers to land_ice_and_lake_ice_or_land_snow as in proposals 1.2 and
>> 3.1? If so, then we should probably add something to the definition
>> advising on the use of an area type to describe exactly which areas
>> are affected.
>>
>> This name is still under discussion.
>>
>>
>>
>> 5. River in- and out-flow [2]
>> water_volume_transport_in_river_channel and
>> water_volume_transport_into_sea_water_from_rivers exist. The new
>> variables represent cell averages of river fluxes directed inwards
>> and outwards respectively.
>> 5.1 rivi River Inflow Water flux from upstream [m3 s-1]
>> river_water_volume_transport_into_cell
>> '"Cell" refers to a model grid-cell. "River water" refers to the
>> water (liquid and solid) in the fluvial system (stream and floodplain).'
>>
>>
>> I think the suggested name and units look good. I suggest that we add
>> some advice about grid cell bounds to the definition (similar to ice
>> mass and ice area names).
>> ' "Cell" refers to a model grid-cell. The extent of an individual
>> grid cell is defined by the horizontal coordinates and any associated
>> coordinate bounds or by a string valued auxiliary coordinate variable
>> with a standard name of "region". "Water" means water in all phases.
>> "River" refers to water in the fluvial system (stream and floodplain).'
>>
>> Is it correct to say that this one includes "water in all phases",
>> i.e. would it include ice floating on a river? (This question also
>> applies to proposal 1.3 change_over_time_in_river_water_amount in the
>> thread "Standard names for LS3MIP: 8 temporal changes + 1 feature
>> depth".
>>
>> This name is still under discussion.
>>
>>
>>
>> 5.2 rivo River Discharge [m3 s-1]
>> river_water_volume_transport_out_of_cell
>>
>>
>> As with proposal 5.1 the name and units look good and I suggest
>> adding advice about cell bounds to the definition:
>> ' "Cell" refers to a model grid-cell. The extent of an individual
>> grid cell is defined by the horizontal coordinates and any associated
>> coordinate bounds or by a string valued auxiliary coordinate variable
>> with a standard name of "region". "Water" means water in all phases.
>> "River" refers to water in the fluvial system (stream and floodplain).'
>>
>> Again, does this one include ice floating on a river?
>>
>> This name is still under discussion.
>>
>>
>>
>> 6. Roots [1]
>>
>> 6.1 rzwc Root zone soil moisture [kg m-2]
>> This is a variation on mass_content_of_water_in_soil_layer, but with
>> a layer defined by the presence of roots rather than a coordinate
>> range (cf. "stratosphere" in atmosphere).
>>
>> mass_content_of_water_in_root_zone
>> "The root zone refers to the soil which surrounds the roots of
>> vegetation."
>>
>>
>> I think it would be helpful to include 'soil' in the name. We have an
>> existing name root_depth defined as 'Depth is the vertical distance
>> below the surface. The root depth is maximum depth of soil reached by
>> plant roots, from which they can extract moisture.' I suggest we call
>> the proposed quantity
>> mass_content_of_water_in_soil_layer_defined_by_root_depth. This is a
>> bit like existing ocean_mixed_layer names, e.g.,
>> ocean_mixed_layer_thickness_defined_by_temperature. The ocean name
>> definitions refer to a coordinate variable whose value contains the
>> temperature, etc., that actually determine the layer thickness. We
>> could do something similar here:
>> ' "Content" indicates a quantity per unit area. The content of a soil
>> layer is the vertical integral of the specified quantity within the
>> layer. The quantity with standard name
>> mass_content_of_water_in_soil_layer_defined_by_root_depth is the
>> vertical integral between the surface and the depth to which plant
>> roots penetrate. A coordinate variable or scalar coordinate variable
>> with standard name root_depth can be used to specify the extent of
>> the layer. "Water" means water in all phases.'
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>>
>>
>> 7. Water fluxes [5]
>> 7.1 qgwr Groundwater recharge from soil layer [kg m-1 s-1]
>> There are no usage of "groundwater" in existing CF terms, the
>> following has been suggested in connection with the LS3MIP term dgw:
>> "Groundwater is the water present beneath Earth's surface in soil
>> pore spaces and in the fractures > of rock formations."
>> water_flux_from_soil_to_groundwater
>>
>>
>> I think there's a typo in the suggested units and it should say kg
>> m-2 s-1. I assume that this quantity must refer to the transfer of
>> liquid water - frozen soil moisture would have to melt before it
>> could permeate to lower levels, wouldn't it? Hence I think this name
>> should be
>> liquid_water_mass_flux_from_soil_to_groundwater (kg m-2 s-1)
>> 'In accordance with common usage in geophysical disciplines, "flux"
>> implies per unit area, called "flux density" in physics. Groundwater
>> is subsurface water below the depth of the water table, including
>> soil moisture and underground aquifers.'
>>
>> I notice the wording of the suggested definition of groundwater
>> differs from the one we have discussed in other LS3MIP proposals,
>> although I think the meaning is the same. For consistency I have used
>> the same wording as other proposals for now. I am aware that there is
>> still some work being done on clarifying the definition of
>> groundwater and we will need to wait for the outcome of that before
>> we can finalise this name.
>>
>> This name is still under discussion.
>>
>>
>>
>> 7.2 sblnosn Sublimation of the snow free area [kg m-2 s-1]
>>
>> This is a variation of the CMIP5 variable "sbl" which used the
>> existing term surface_snow_and_ice_sublimation_flux. Here, we just
>> drop "and_ice" > to get a term referring to the ice only.
>> surface_ice_sublimation_flux
>>
>>
>> Looking at existing names I see we also have
>> surface_snow_sublimation_amount. Rather than talking about
>> sublimation amount in one name and sublimation flux in others I think
>> it would make sense to take a more uniform approach. I think the
>> primary purpose of the existing surface_snow_and_ice_sublimation_flux
>> name is to describe changes at the surface, rather than a water
>> vapour flux into the atmosphere. Hence I suggest introducing aliases:
>> surface_snow_sublimation_amount ->
>> tendency_of_surface_snow_amount_due_to_sublimation
>> surface_snow_and_ice_sublimation_flux ->
>> tendency_of_surface_snow_and_ice_amount_due_to_sublimation
>> and calling the proposed quantity:
>> tendency_of_ice_amount_due_to_sublimation.
>> None of these names specify that the snow and ice are located on
>> land, so as with the albedo and evaporation names we probably need to
>> use them in conjunction with an area type. Do you agree with this
>> approach?
>>
>>
>>
>> 7.3 snmsl Water flowing out of snowpack [kg m-2 s-1]
>> This is a variation of snm [surface_snow_melt_flux], but considering
>> only the component of the flux into soil:
>>
>> surface_snow_melt_flux_into_soil
>>
>>
>> For this name I suggest a different form:
>> liquid_water_mass_flux_into_soil_due_to_surface_snow_melt (kg m-2 s-1)
>>
>> There are a number of reasons for suggesting this. The existing
>> surface_snow_melt_flux name isn't very clear in my opinion. It
>> doesn't say where the flux is going (or even that it is a mass flux,
>> although that is mentioned in the definition). It might even be
>> better to change the existing name to something like
>> tendency_of_surface_snow_amount_due_to_melting. The other reason I am
>> suggesting a different form for the proposed quantity is because of
>> the use of the phrase 'surface_snow' in standard names to mean snow
>> lying on the surface. I think there's some potential for confusing
>> surface_snow with a surface_flux (i.e. flux in or out of the
>> atmosphere) when that clearly isn't intended. The definition would be
>> as follows:
>> 'In accordance with common usage in geophysical disciplines, "flux"
>> implies per unit area, called "flux density" in physics. The
>> specification of a physical process by the phrase "due_to_" process
>> means that the quantity named is a single term in a sum of terms
>> which together compose the general quantity named by omitting the
>> phrase. The phrase "surface_snow" means snow lying on the surface.'
>>
>> Okay?
>>
>> The sentence explaining that surface_snow means lying snow is new,
>> but I think we should add it to all existing surface snow names. Do
>> others agree?
>>
>> This name is still under discussion.
>>
>>
>>
>> 7.4 snwc Snow intercepted by the vegetation [kg m-2]
>>
>> There is an existing term "canopy_water_amount", hence:
>> canopy_snow_amount
>>
>>
>> I think the name and units are fine. The definition would be:
>> ' "Amount" means mass per unit area. "Canopy" means the plant or
>> vegetation canopy. The phrase "canopy_snow" means snow lying on the
>> canopy.'
>>
>> This one is a straight forward addition to the standard name table.
>> It is accepted for publication and will be added in the June update.
>>
>> 7.5 sw Surface Water Storage (excluding snow) [kg m-2]
>> The existing term surface_water_amount refers to ".. the amount on
>> the ground, excluding that on the plant or vegetation canopy", and
>> "water" is assumed to refer to all phases. There is a term
>> "land_based_water_amount" under discussion for PMIP which refers to
>> "This quantity is often known as Terrestrial Water Storage. It
>> includes surface water (water in rivers, wetlands, lakes, snow,
>> vegetation and reservoirs) and subsurface water (soil moisture,
>> groundwater)".
>>
>> Assuming that this term is intended to be a variation on the first,
>> surface_water_amount, and the amount includes only liquid phase water
>> (excluding snow and ice):
>> surface_liquid_water_amount
>>
>> I note that the PMIP name you refer to is currently listed as
>> land_water_amount. Given that this variable is related and is clearly
>> limited to surface water on land (i.e. it excludes surface sea water)
>> I suggest:
>> land_surface_liquid_water_amount (kg m-2)
>> 'The surface called "surface" means the lower boundary of the
>> atmosphere. "Amount" means mass per unit area. The quantity with
>> standard name land_surface_liquid_water_amount includes water in
>> rivers, wetlands, lakes, snow, vegetation and reservoirs.'
>>
>> I am aware that there is still some work being done on clarifying the
>> definition of land water and we will need to wait for the outcome of
>> that before we can finalise this name.
>>
>> This name is still under discussion.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Alison
>>
>> ------
>> Alison Pamment Tel: +44 1235 778065
>> NCAS/Centre for Environmental Data Archival Email:
>> alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk<mailto:alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk>
>> STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
>> R25, 2.22
>> Harwell Oxford, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CF-metadata mailing list
>> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto: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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Received on Sun Jun 10 2018 - 08:02:53 BST
