[CF-metadata] standard name proposal for CCMVal

[Philip J. Cameronsmith1]

Hi Alison, et al.

On the burden issue I would say that I am pretty much on-the-fence. I see 
the merits of both arguments.  I would also say that both options are 
good, so I don't think there is a wrong choice.

The question of 'passive' can also be discussed on the flip-side by 
discussing opposite: 'interactive'. Chemicals can be interactive with 
other chemicals, aerosols, clouds, radiation, wet & dry deposition, and 
vegetation, among other things.  Thus a tracer can be passive to any 
combination of such interactions.  Handling all the possibilities through 
the standard names probably wouldn't be feasible.

Would there be a way of listing the 'interactions' or 'non-interactions' 
somewhere else in the metadata?

Alternatively, most of the combinations of interactions will never be 
used in practice.  Would it be possible to have standard names for 
passive1, passive2, passive3, etc, with the combination of interactions 
defined for each case as needed?

On the issue of the definitions for Cly, NOx, NMVOC, and other chemical 
families, it is true that different models can include different species 
in a family. However, the family is typically useful because the total has 
a meaning independent of the exact split between its component 
parts, so that output of families from different models will be somewhat 
comparable.

This issue is similar to the challenge of defining 'ozone production'. 
In that case, I believe CF decided that the merits of including the 
quantity outweighed the ambiguity in the definition.  I believe the same 
should be true here too.

Best wishes,

      Philip

On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Jonathan Gregory wrote:

> Dear Martin
>
>> Concerning the passivity of passive ozone, I believe that it is absolute. I.e.
>> it has no feedbacks on the model evolution. If we start listing the feedbacks
>> which it doesn't have we need to anticipate all feedbacks for true ozone that
>> might be incorporated into the models in the future. Isn't it simpler to say
>> that there are none?
>
>> Chemically_passive would be wrong, as it is also radiatively passive.
>
> Ah. Obviously that didn't occur to me or Alison, and my feeling is that
> indicates "passive" to be an uninformative term. In what respect is it "ozone"?
>
> Cheers
>
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Philip Cameron-Smith        Energy & Environment Directorate
pjc at llnl.gov                   Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
+1 925 4236634                 7000 East Avenue, Livermore, CA94550, USA
------------------------------------------------------------------------