[CF-metadata] standard name proposal for CCMVal

[Eyring, Veronika]

Dear colleagues,

Thanks for your comments on the standard name proposal for CCMVal.

1. Regarding the suggested chemical names, I looked at the IUPAC names 
but have decided to follow the chemical formulae and nomenclature from 
the 2006 WMO/UNEP Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion as a first 
suggestion (see Appendix C in 
http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/SAP/Scientific_Assessment_2006/11-Appendices.pdf) 
as obviously these are the names the modelling community, in particular 
the CCMVal community, are most familiar with. If there is no rule that 
we have to use IUPAC, I'd prefer keeping those.

However, IUPAC based names (omitting commas and hyphens) could be used 
for the CFCs. They would be:

cfc11: Trichlorofluoromethane
cfc12: Dichlorodifluoromethane
cfc113: 112trichloro122trifluoroethane
cfc113a: 111trichloro222trifluoroethane
cfc114: 12dichloro1122tetrafluoroethane
cfc115: 11chloro11222pentafluoroethane
(names adapted from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorofluorocarbon#Chloro_fluoro_compounds_.28CFC.2C_HCFC.29).

I am not sure that the cfc113, cfc113a pair is really suitable. It is
true that cfc113 and cfc113a only differ by one letter, but the
differences in the IUPAC names appear likely to cause more confusion.
There are also 4 halon compounds in our standard name proposal that 
could be replaced with the IUPAC names.

Does anyone think that use of the longer names will promote clarity for 
CFCs and halons? Is anyone not ok with following WMO/UNEP nomenclature 
for all or all other species?

2. The use of 'burden' follows widespread scientific usage, though it is
clear that it is not unambiguous on its own. The intention was to use 
'burden' in the name and have an unambiguous definition in the 
definition. The alternative approach would be to build a definition into 
the standard name, but according to Martin Juckes that is a radical 
departure from the way the list has developed up to this point.

It appears that no one on the list would support the use of '_content' 
in a standard name, since all the objections raised against 'burden' 
apply equally or more so to 'content'. Given that column totals are 
referred to as '_content' it appears reasonable to refer to global 
totals as '_burden'. So I would prefer we keep '_burden'.

3. On another note: I am already receiving emails from modelers asking 
for additional CF names for chemistry which have not yet been defined. 
Obviously the list we are proposing does not include all chemical 
species, in particular not for the troposphere. HTAP has to my knowledge 
also not yet specified the full list of species relevant for 
tropospheric chemistry, e.g. only 
mole_fraction_of_anthropogenic_nmvoc_in_air
mole_fraction_of_biogenic_nmvoc_in_air
but not the different nmvocs. Is there any attempt to provide CF 
standard names for other chemical species as part of HTAP, AEROCOM or 
other projects? Can I direct those requests to the discussion on names 
for chemistry and aerosol at 
http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/Air_Quality/Chemistry_Naming_Conventions?

Best regards,
Veronika Eyring

------------------------------------------------------------------
   Dr. Veronika Eyring     	veronika.eyring at dlr.de
   Deutsches Zentrum fuer Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR)
   DLR-Institut fuer Physik der Atmosphaere,
   Oberpfaffenhofen, D-82230 Wessling, Germany
   Phone: +49-8153-28-2533, Fax.: +49-8153-28-1841
   http://www.pa.op.dlr.de/~VeronikaEyring/
------------------------------------------------------------------